Digital Brownshirt

Princess Pelosi is just too stupid..

2011-10-10T07:13:00.000-07:00

Let’s start out with a little quote, shall we?

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late 70s in San Francisco, this king of rhetoric. … It created a climate in which violence took place. … I wish we would all curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements and understand that some of the ears that it is falling on are not a balanced as the person making the statements may assume.”

That was in reference to the recent Occupy Wall Street crowd, right? Wrong. That was Nancy Pelosi talking about the tea party in 2009. What does she have to say about the Occupy Wall Street kids? “God bless them.” Let’s take a look at some of the rhetoric from these “blessed” kids and those who are speaking at their rallies
…
In New Orleans we have people marching who are apparently shouting to “Kill the cops!”

This occupier in New York has a message for Republicans: “They want a class war? They’ll get one …”

Sometimes actions speak louder than words .. a protestor in New York was photographed defecating on a police car.

Actor Danny Glover spoke at an occupy demonstration in LA where he said, “We need 24/7 warriors.”

This is just a smattering of the incidents being reported around the country. What does Nancy Pelosi have to say about this kind of behavior? She doesn’t. She only has a message for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who referred to these kids at “mobs.” Pelosi says, "I didn't hear him say anything when the Tea Party was out demonstrating, actually spitting on members of Congress right here in the Capitol and he and his colleagues were putting signs in the windows encouraging them. But let's not get down to that." Perhaps the reason Princess Pelosi doesn’t want to get into that is because there is no documented proof that tea party protestors spit on members of Congress. Meanwhile, we have lots of documented proof of the antics of these Wall Street kids.

While the tea party protestors were calling for Congress to “kill the bill” (ObamaCare), the occupy Wall Street crowd is calling to “kill the wealthy.” Where is Nancy Pelosi’s comment on this type of behavior or rhetoric … the pot calling the kettle black?

A Plan to run Haiti

2011-10-04T08:14:00.000-07:00

The Libtards occupying Wall Street have come up with a proposed list of their demands. You are going to enjoy these .. are you ready?

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Let’s let the Occupy Wall Street crowd run Haiti for a few years utilizing these demands and see how well that works out for them. And do any of you think for one minute that Obama is not on board with these Marxists?

A Dick is still a Dick

2011-10-04T08:11:00.000-07:00

Check out the cajones on this guy, Dick Durbin.

First he crafts new federal regulations to cap the amount banks can charge retailers for swipe fees for processing debit cards.

Then the banks warn that this regulation will cost them millions, maybe even billions. And because businesses are in business to … make money … they will not just sit back and take it. This will force them to pass on the costs to the consumer.

Dick Durbin includes his amendment in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and it passes and becomes the law of the land.

Banks, such as Bank of America, announce that they will now start charging customers a fee for using their debit cards, thanks to Durbin’s financial regulations.
Then Dick Durbin gets up on the floor of the Senate and says, “Bank of America customers, vote with your feet … Get the heck out of that bank. Find yourself a bank or credit union that won’t gouge you for $5 a month and still will give you a debit card that you can use every single day.” He adds, “What Bank of America has done is an outrage.”

An outrage? This is exactly what the industry warned about all along! What’s outrageous is the size of this guy’s gonads .. that he can impose these regulations and then blame the banks when they are forced to comply. Sheesh!

2011-09-22T09:32:00.000-07:00

Here’s a prime example of why this country is suffering from a crisis of confidence. The people --- even the ObamaBots --- are learning that you simply can’t believe a durn thing that comes out of Dear Ruler’s mouth .. or should I say, that a speech writer enters into Dear Ruler’s teleprompter.

Just a few days ago, Barack Obama gave a speech announcing his grand plan to reduce our deficit. He spent much of the time demonizing the wealthy, harping on the millionaires and billionaires and corporations, and telling people to pay their fair share. Throughout it all he insisted, "This is not class warfare.” He said, “I reject the idea that asking a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare. I think it’s just the right the thing to do.” Hate to tell you this Obama but even if you think it is right, doesn’t mean that you aren’t waging war against the achievers in our nation. But he insists, “This is not class warfare. It’s math.”

However, just two days later during a speech in New York, Barack “this is not class warfare” Obama declares himself to be a warrior for the middle class.
“Now, you’re already hearing the Republicans in Congress dusting off the old talking points. You can write their press releases. “Class warfare,” they say. You know what, if asking a billionaire to pay the same rate as a plumber or a teacher makes me a warrior for the middle class, I wear that charge as a badge of honor.”

Folks, there are only so many ways I can say this. Barack Obama is full of shit. He is a warrior for the middle class because he is championing the idea that the government needs to use its police power of government to take stuff away from wealthy people and give it to people more likely to vote for him. Even if Obama succeeded in doing that, it would hardly make a difference to our spending/debt/deficit crisis … though it would certainly affect (negatively) jobs and investment, seeing as these evil rich people are the ones who invest in companies and create the jobs. The Tax Foundation has some more enlightening statistics for you using IRS statistics:

Taking half of the yearly income from every person making between one and ten million dollars would only decrease the nation's debt by 1%. Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation's deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent.
Not enough? Here’s another way to look at it!

If the highest rate of 35% were raised by a factor of 20% to 42%, then the additional tax revenue would be $43.5 Billion, not much of a dent in our $1.665 trillion deficit. So, let's raise the rate by a factor of 50% to 52.5%; the additional revenue would be $108.9 billion. Still nowhere near enough, so let's just tax it at a rate of 100%, bringing in an additional $404.8 Billion. Unfortunately the country is still $1.26 trillion in the hole for the year.

Despite the conventional wisdom in Libtardia, revenue is not the problem in this country. The problem with our system is not that we are allowing rich people to keep too much of their money … that’s lib logic, by the way … the problem is that we simply are spending too much. How can people forget that Obama increased government spending by more than 25% in his first two and one-half years? Just how does he get away with this? He increases spending by that amount and doubles our debt ... then he says that our problem is that the rich simply are not paying their “fair share” in taxes.

And by the way, the “fair share” term is all you need to understand that this is a class warfare campaign. It’s all he has --- he has no record of accomplishment to run on in next year’s election. Stirring hatred and resentment for high-achievers is his preferred method. Not that Obama cares, but America simply cannot afford a European welfare state without sacrificing our freedoms to pay for it.

Lore Pohlman

2011-09-21T08:01:00.000-07:00

It appears that about 40% of the country makes up a core of blue… people who are wedded to their leftist philosophy as if it were a religion… they believe it will succeed despite all evidence to the contrary. From the economic malaise it has inflicted on the United States to the economic meltdown that is playing itself out in Europe to the wholesale abandonment of the leftist policies by governments from Beijing to Delhi to Hanoi. Despite the complete lack of a single demonstrable example of a sustained success of the Marxist / Keynesian / Alinsky philosophy, they still believe and it appears that virtually nothing anyone in the red corner can say can change their minds.

Today the aspirations embodied by their messiah are no longer just theoretical solutions and aspirational promises. This is not 2008 when the press could blame all of America’s woes on a reviled Bush White House. It’s not 2008 when Barack Obama could tell stories about how he plans on putting America back to work by rebuilding our infrastructure and creating green jobs. It’s not 2008 where Barack Obama could promise to make America respected again in the eyes of the world by closing Guantanamo and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not 2008 where Barack Obama could rail against George Bush’s “years of unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility.” On the contrary, in the summer of 2011 President Obama finds himself in the middle of a perfect storm of failure, yet it seems to have no effect on his followers.

The most recent issue is of course Solyndra. The solar panel company that was the poster child for the green jobs that were the key to fulfilling his campaign pledge to future generations that (his election) “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” In 2009 the Administration gave the company $535 million in loan guarantees and in March of 2010 the President toured the company, declaring “the promise of clean energy isn’t just an article of faith.” Today the company sits bankrupt and taxpayers are out half a billion dollars. What’s worse for President Obama’s green jobs agenda is the fact that apparently each of those touted green jobs costs $5 million…

On the jobs front the President has just gone back to Congress and requested that they give him an additional $500 billion for a second stimulus program… because his previous $1 Trillion stimulus plan worked so well. The President suggested that his stimulus program (circa 2009) would bring unemployment down to 7.1% by August of 2011. In reality, his stimulus program did pass yet unemployment stands at 9.1% today. Fully two million more Americans are unemployed today than were promised by the President.

On the single most important issue of the day, jobs, President Obama has demonstrated not only that he is out of ideas, but that he wants to double down on the same bad ideas didn’t work in the past… and he wants to pay for the whole thing by raising taxes by $1.5 trillion. Unfortunately for him, things don’t look any better anywhere else. Domestically, inflation is on the rise, the economy is on life support and federal deficits are larger than at any time in history. Internationally, America’s leadership is once again so strong that the Palestinians are heading to the UN to ask for recognition despite US opposition, the Arab spring threatens to put Islamists in charge across the region, Europe is crumbling and Asian allies wonder about America’s commitment to the region as Taiwan is left twisting in the wind by the administration’s decision not to sell the island nation 66 new F-16 fighter jets for fear of offending the Chinese. Politically, the President’s leftist policies have so pummeled the citizens of New York that last week the GOP captured a house seat that had been held by the Democrats since 1923.

While the nirvana that was to be ushered in by Hope and Change has not materialized, it’s not because the administration has demurred from putting its policies in place. On the contrary, they’ve done so in most cases either by legislation or executive action. Despite all of this failure, a solid 40% of the electorate still supports President Obama and the discredited policies of the left. One wonders how is it possible that seeing all of this they could still believe? Then again, maybe it’s not so difficult to understand. A sign of a religion after all, is believing in something despite all empirical data that suggest it might not be true, or perhaps more accurately, the lack of empirical data that suggest it is true. The difference between a religion and the leftist policies of President Obama is that the former typically promises nirvana in the afterlife while the latter is supposed to be focused on this one. Nothing can prove Heaven doesn’t exist and therefore believers continue to believe. It’s called faith. History on the other hand, from FDR right up to Barack Obama, demonstrates clearly that the socialist, redistributive policies of the left simply do not work. Yet, the believers still believe, and vote accordingly. That fits Einstein’s definition of insanity. In this case it might just be called stupidity.

It's All Bush's fault

2011-09-15T08:45:00.000-07:00

As you know --- every problem that Obama has faced – and failed to address successfully – is really Bush’s fault. It is rumored (not really) that Obama has a version of the Presidential Seal on his desk with a new slogan: “It’s Bush’s Fault.”You’re probably aware of the Solyndra scandal. Here’s my best attempt to simplify the scandal into bullet points:Obama decides that he is the one who will decide where the new jobs will be, and he wants green jobs. Green jobs make liberals happy. Since Obama thinks that green jobs are cool, he decides to throw taxpayer money to private businesses who promise him green jobs.Solyndra needs money. So Solyndra gets in line for some ObamaMoney.Obama thinks that Solyndra is the perfect backdrop for his green jobs program, so he designates Joe Biden to go make a speech at the groundbreaking for a new Solyndra facility.But wait! Solyndra has applied for a $500 million plus loan guarantee, and the application hasn’t been approved yet!Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget tells him that the loan isn’t a very good idea.Obama remembers, though, that Solyndra principal George Kaiser is huge contributor to his campaign.Emails fly at the White House. Some suggesting that the loan guarantee isn’t a good idea, some saying we need to move ahead on this project. Somewhere along the line the loan agreement is modified to protect Solyndra investors while putting the American taxpayers on the hook.Obama administration officials actually sat in on some Solyndra board meetings while all of this, and Solyndra finances, were being discussed. (Imagine of Bush administration officials had sat in on Enron board meetings.)The loan guarantee goes through. The administration gets their day in the sun with Joe Biden speaking at Solyndra headquarters.About a year later Solyndra is in the tank.The taxpayers take it on the chin for over $500 milllion.The Democrats blame Bush, saying that the loan application happened during the Bush administration, not Obama’s.The Republicans are rude enough to point out that the Bush administration rejected the Solyndra loan application. It only gained new life when Obama took office and started spouting off about green jobs.The FBI raids Solyndra headquarters.Democrats and the Obama folks go into pure defense mode. Where does this go from here? That is going to depend on whether or not the ObamaMedia is compelled to really cover the story.

Solyndra and Green Jobs

2011-09-12T06:38:00.000-07:00

Lest we forget that in 2009, Barack Obama appointed an avowed communist, Van Jones, to be his greens jobs czar. That’s right, a communist was the president’s “special advisor” on one of the pillars of his economic plan: green jobs. Actyually … that was pretty much what you might have expected, since so many communists went running to the environmental movement when the world communist movement collapsed. I just want us to remember this mindset as we approach this story about how the Obama administration then went and “invested” $535 million in the now bankrupt solar company, Solyndra. In September of 2009, the Obama administration heralded a $535 million loan guarantee for Solyndra as a “game changer” for the green energy movement. Vice President Biden emphasized that Solyndra would be creating thousands of permanent jobs: “Jobs you can raise a family on, green jobs, jobs that will serve as a foundation for a stronger American economy.” Biden said, “These are the jobs that are going to define the 21st century and the jobs — going to allow America to compete and to lead like we did in the 20th century.”So much for that.In January of this year, Solyndra was able to refinance its loan. During the time of the loan’s restructuring, the Energy Department kept a close eye on the company, even having DOE officials sit in on board meetings. Then in the summer of 2011, the CEO of Solyndra made several visits to Washington, apparently maintaining that the company was stable. Then just weeks later, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy. Now we have federal agents scouring through documents from homes of Solyndra’s CEO and founders. There will be hearings in Congress this week as to whether the DOE was misled by Solyndra on the stability of their investment.Look, folks. This is what happens when you have government officials picking the winners and losers, all with your tax dollars on the line. Barack Obama wouldn’t know how to create a job if his own job depended on it. The fact that this iconic green jobs investment failed so epically is an extremely bad PR situation for Obama. But more importantly, it is bad for those people who lost their jobs on the false promise of a green jobs future.

Too cute by half.

2011-09-01T08:01:00.001-07:00

The Big Zero caved. Now he'll deliver his usual shopworn leftists cliches on TV opposite the opening game of NFL football. He's also embarked on a desperation campaign to "run against Washington," as if he (or any) president isn't the very epicenter of what IS Washington.

Obama's cave-in is being played in some media as "bowing to Boehner." Well, why not? He's bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia and half the Muslim dictators of the middle-east, so why not the Speaker of the House?'

One wonders what the broader public reaction had been if he'd tried to stick with the date opposite the Republican presidential debate and no Republican House or Senate members even showed up and let him speak to a half-empty chamber. Of course, it would show a "lack of respect". But who's kidding whom? They don't respect this phony, anyway.

Let's see ... I can watch Obama blather liberal -- and failed -- economic cliches, or I can watch the Packers vs. the Saints. It may take me as long as one second to decide ...

This dyspeptic dude is the very antithesis of Churchill's classic description of an old British political hack as "a modest man, with much to be modest about." He flunks the first part, anyway. The second, he fills abundantly.

2011-08-25T07:24:00.000-07:00

We’ve all been waiting with pregnant anticipation for Dear Ruler to return from his vacation and explain to us his grand jobs plan … right? Oh yeah! We’re saved! Barack Obama, the smartest man ever to become president, has a plan! Finally, after more than two and one-half years in office, Our “sort of a God” president who had to “step down” into the office of the presidency is going to step forward and part the unemployment waters so that his people can march across a red-carpeted seabed to the wonderful world of employment!

I feel this strange tingly thing going up and down my leg!

Now since Obama is going to present us with his “plan,” we can imagine that it will be in the form of a comprehensive business plan, right? After all, that’s where we need to create the jobs. So I’m guessing Obama is going to present us with some goals for American Business and a detailed plan on how we will achieve those goals.
This is going to be just swell!

But, alas! Something has happened! After Obama left for his oh-so-well-deserved vacation and his handlers immediately started to downgrade expectations for his jobs plan. Now we are all saddened to learn that it isn’t actually going to be a plan any more. Drat! Not a plan? Now we’ve learned that suddenly it became an outline. Oh, okay .. so screw the specifics on how to achieve our goals. Now we are just going to get an outline. Fantastic. I’m sure it is still going to be a fantastic outline – something worthy of the Great and Powerful Obama.

Uh oh .. hold on. Now we’re hearing that perhaps an outline became too much for us to expect of Dear Ruler. Now, according to deputy spokesman Josh Earnest, we can anticipate “some reasonable ideas that can have a tangible impact,” Left in the lurch again. Now we’ve been downgraded to some “reasonable ideas.” Well, I’m sure that with all of his experience in business and finance, and considering his understanding of the dynamics of private sector business growth and hiring, Obama will come roaring in the game with “reasonable ideas” that are sure to empty the unemployment lines in no time flat.

Who the hell am I kidding here? The American people feel more negatively about our economy than they’ve felt in decades … and that’s because the American people know that we have a man in the White House that has no clue in the world what he is doing. He’s a freaking community organizer and leftist activist, for Gawd’s sake – not a brilliant economic mind. This man doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to run a sandwich shop, yet there he sits on his godly throne telling us that he is going to save our economy with some “reasonable ideas” that will be written on two stone tablets when he comes down from The Mount of Martha’s Vineyard. What a load of purified horse shit.

So at this point, what sort of “reasonable ideas” can we expect from Obama? They damned sure won’t be ideas that will encourage private businessmen to start spending some of their money to expand and hire. Remember … to Obama, the private sector is “the enemy.” His words, not mine. We did, however, have two more have surfaced as of yesterday. These ideas, by the way, would be able to be accomplished without any legislation or need to battle with Republicans in Congress. They would be:
#1: Increase the number of college graduates in engineering and give companies incentives to hire them.

Really? How many small business owners do you know out there who are sitting on their hands right now because they’re concerned that there’s just not enough engineering graduates to go around? And incentives? What kind of incentives? Know what this sounds like to me? Do something to artificially boost the number of engineering students in colleges and then use taxpayer money to entice businesses into hiring them when the graduate. Yeah, that ought to work. I can see the Dow going through the roof right now.

#2: Employ construction workers to retrofit commercial buildings to make them more energy efficient.

Oh yeah. Weatherization II. Oh … and green jobs. Gotta love those green jobs.
Roll the tape: “The Economic Development Department in California reports that $59 million in state, federal and private money dedicated to green jobs training and apprenticeship has led to only 719 job placements — the equivalent of an $82,000 subsidy for each one.”

Then there’s that weatherization program in Seattle. You remember that one, don’t you? And that’s what we’re talking about here in Obama’s “reasonable idea.” Weatherizing commercial buildings. In April of 2010 Bite Me Biden and Mike McGinn, the mayor of Seattle, had a little soiree to announce a $20 million federal grant (borrowed funds your children will have to pay back) for weatherizing Seattle homes. Oh yeah .. what a big deal THIS was going to be. Think about it! It was going to create 2000 jobs! Amazing! So fast forward to now, and what do we have? A total of three homes have been weatherized and 14 jobs have been created; most of them administrative and temporary.

But wait! There’s more! Here’s a peak at how that is working out for California:
Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development.

The weatherization program was initially delayed for seven months while the federal Department of Labor determined prevailing wage standards for the industry. Even after that issue was resolved, the program never really caught on.

Look, folks .. these ideas are all well-and-good but they are not based on any semblance of reality. This is nothing more than government picking the economic winners and losers: The government wants green jobs and construction workers to succeed, therefore it will create and fund a program to do something that otherwise would not be done in the private marketplace.

At one point in his presidency, Obama pledged to create five million green jobs over the next ten years. Five million green jobs. Instead, we have 2.5 million fewer people working today than the day he was inaugurated. From the looks of things, pushing green initiatives seems to be a jobs killer, not an economic boost: “A study released in July by the non-partisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and only slightly more — 2.2 percent — in Silicon Valley. Rather than adding jobs, the study found, the sector actually lost 492 positions from 2003 to 2010 in the South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent.”

All Obama needs to do is unleash the private sector. Unshackle businesses from the binds of burdensome regulations and stifling taxes. Let the marketplace determine whether or not it needs energy efficient buildings or more engineers in the office place. Trying to create artificial demand will only hinder true demand and therefore true economic growth.

Here's an idea---Stay in Martha's Vineyard, let Joe Biden stay in Mongolia, send Pelosi and Reid to Libya to organize the new government and just stay the hell out of the way.

Fool me 1,238,451 times shame on me

2011-08-22T08:22:00.000-07:00

President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature.
It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:

A. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 236 years to get it right and it is broke.

B. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 76 years to get it right and it is broke.

C. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 73 years to get it right and it is broke.

D. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 47 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

E. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 46 years to get it right and they are broke.

F. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 41 years to get it right and it is broke.

G. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 34 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM ??

Real World DC

2011-08-09T07:11:00.001-07:00

Imagine that Barack Obama was voted to become CEO of a large corporation. At the time he assumed leadership, the company was headed downhill. Fast. The first thing he did was fire anyone who actually had any business experience, either with that company or another in a similar field. After three years at the helm, all that Obama managed to do as CEO of that company was increase its spending by 25%, lose 2.5 million workers and grow the company by less than 2%. Do you think that he would still be the CEO of that company or do think that the board of directors would have yanked him out of there?

It's not Obozo's fault.

2011-08-08T08:21:00.000-07:00

Libs, Progs, Dems .. all of them are upset that their guy Barack Obama is a tragic failure, so they are going to try and blame these failures on something else. I cited two main sources of blame for Obama’s failures: The Tea Party and George Bush.

The downgrade of our credit rating has validated this theory. Unable to cope with the idea that their guy, Barack Obama, royally screwed up and is now responsible for the first credit downgrade in U.S. history … they are pointing fingers. Big time.
So the #1 scapegoat over the weekend was … the Tea Party! Let’s take a look at some of the highlights:

Obama’s 2012 campaign strategist/chief dogwasher David Axelrod says that this “a tea party downgrade.” He says that we would never have been in this position if the tea party hadn’t put up a fight in debate over raising our debt ceiling. Axelrod said, “It was the wrong thing to do to push the country to that point. It was something that should never have happened that clearly is on the backs of those who were willing the see the country default: those very strident voices in the tea party.”

John Kerry echoed Axelrod’s comments about this being “a tea party downgrade.” He said on “Meet the Press”: “This is the Tea Party downgrade because a minority of people in the House of Representatives countered even the will of many Republicans in the United States Senate who were prepared to do a bigger deal.” Remember that this is the same man who said that the tea party should not be given equal air time. On Friday’s “Morning Joe” he said, “The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual … It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do.”

Howard Dean also chimed in to blame the tea party’s influence on the debt ceiling debate for the recent U.S. credit downgrade. He said on CBS's "Face the Nation”: "This is a tea party problem … They are totally unreasonable and doctrinaire and not founded in reality. I think they've been smoking some of that tea, not just drinking it."

The progs at MoveOn.org are upset with Dear Ruler for being too soft on the Tea Party, which is ultimately to blame for this mess. The executive director MoveOn.org Justin Ruben said over the weekend, “It’s hard to see how we avoid a Tea-Party recession if the president who has the biggest megaphone in the country is not willing to speak clearly on the issue.”

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman blogged over the weekend: “On one hand, there is a case to be made that the madness of the right has made America a fundamentally unsound nation. And yes, it is the madness of the right: if not for the extremism of anti-tax Republicans, we would have no trouble reaching an agreement that would ensure long-run solvency.”

The next victim of the Lib, Prog, Dem blame game was the Bush tax cuts or our failure to increase taxes on the evil, filthy, disgusting rich.
Daniel Gross is the Yahoo Finance economics editor. He wrote over the weekend that it was our failure to increase taxes that led to this downgrade, which was intentional sabotage by the GOP: “Recent events have sapped the agency's confidence that the government can and will do what is necessary to align revenues with spending commitments. And it's difficult to escape the conclusion that America's credit rating was intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans … It has long been obvious to all observers -- to economists, to politicians, to anti-deficit groups, to the ratings agencies -- that closing fiscal gaps will require tax increases, or the closure of big tax loopholes, or significant tax reform that will raise significantly larger sums of tax revenue than the system does now.”

Former Obama administration car czar Steven Rattner recently called Tea Partiers economic terrorists. In light of the credit downgrade, he took to the airwaves to blame our deficit crisis to begin with on … the Bush tax cuts! He said on Sunday’s “This Week”: “But you do have one group of people who are saying no tax increases, never, no how, when in fact the tax decreases under President Bush partly got us in this problem. If you take today’s one and a half trillion dollar deficit, a trillion of it is from excess spending. 400 billion of it is from the Bush tax cuts.”

The Obama administration itself is seizing on one portion of the S&P’s report to try and convince the American people that if we had agreed to Obama’s plan, which included tax increases, that our credit rating would never have been downgraded. But as I pointed out above, tax increases are not what forced the S&P’s hand … it was our massive spending and the inability of the S&P to feel confident in our future ability to cut spending that ultimately led to this downgrade. Increasing taxes on the evil rich will have no bearing on that.

Perhaps the most asinine of all these excuses over the weekend was this one from ABC's Cokie Roberts. She manages to blame this all on … our Constitution!
In a discussion on “This Week,” Cokie Roberts said the following: 'The problem that we have here is the Constitution of the United States of America which actually does require people to come together from different perspectives.”
The Constitution is the problem?

What sort of yak squeeze is this woman sniffing?

Prog Speak

2011-08-08T08:16:00.000-07:00

A little lesson in ProgSpeak. This is where liberals take common words or phrases that have become tainted in public discourse, and assign new words that will pass public scrutiny but which, to the left, means exactly the same thing.

One of the first things the left had to do was to get rid of the word “liberal.” People instinctively (and with good reason) don’t like the word “liberal.” So … now the word among the enlightened is “progressive.” I just shorten it to “Prog.” Sounds nicer, and reminds me of the frog in the frying pan routine. Then you remember “spending” of course. Well the people aren’t all that comfortable with government spending right now, so the new word for the left is “investing.” Yup! The government does “spend” on projects anymore; it “invests” in them.

Here’s the latest. Liberals have figured out that the term “tax increase” doesn’t exactly send a tingle down our collective legs. So … now “tax increases” have become “revenues.” Who, after all, can object to the government increasing revenues in the middle of a debt crisis? Don’t we need revenues to pay off our debts and to cover the costs of government’s essential services? Well of course! But there are at least two ways the government can increase revenues. One, the method preferred by Progs, is to raise taxes. The other, favored by the right, is to grow the private sector economy.

You might remember the last time we even came close to a balanced budget. The Republicans were in control of the House and Clinton was president. There was also something happening in the private sector called the “Dot-com revolution.” Sure, that later became the Dot-com bust and erased projections of budget surpluses – but the point is that it was growth in the private sector that brought the revenues that almost led to a balanced budget.

I did a lot of reading over the weekend about this credit rating downgrade. A common theme in these articles and opinion pieces was that the United States needed to cut spending AND increase revenues. But … when you read these pieces you will see that the only type of revenue increase they recognize is raising taxes! Where is the discussion about growing our economy? A growing economy means increased government revenues --- but you would never know that listening to the Obamatrons and the ObamaMedia! It’s all about tax increases.

Bottom line --- these people think that dollars spent by the private sector carry not near the economic impact that a dollar spent by government does. It’s all about government – and political power.

Downgrade

2011-08-08T08:12:00.000-07:00

How about that credit downgrade to round out an immense week for Obama and our political elite in Washington?

Let me give you a brief look at how it all went …

April 2011: There is “no risk” of a downgrade to our AAA credit rating – Treasury Secretary tax cheat Timothy Geithner.

August 2, 2011: After months of debate, Obama signs a debt ceiling increase, which potentially includes $2 trillion in spending cuts.

August 5, 2011: Standard & Poor downgrades the U.S. credit rating to AA+ from AAA for the first time in our history.

August 7, 2011: A Standard & Poor's official says there is a 1 in 3 chance that the U.S. credit rating could be downgraded another notch if conditions erode over the next six to 24 months.

August 8, 2011: We waiting for the Treasury Secretary/tax cheat to tell us that there is “no risk” of a downgrade to our AA+ credit rating.

After all that, how did we get here? According to the S&P, they were dissatisfied with how politicians in Washington handled the haggling over budget cuts.

Additionally, S&P is not at all confident that we will be able to follow through on the proposed cuts. The head of sovereign ratings at S&P is a guy by the name of David Beers. He says that the S&P was worried about the "degree of uncertainty around the political policy process. The nature of the debate and the difficulty in framing a political consensus ... that was the key consideration." The key to maintaining our current rating, not slipping further, and hopefully bumping back up to our AAA rating will be spending cuts. Period. End of story.

While the S&P says that tax increases would be nice, that is not the key for any future downgrade. The key will be spending cuts.

I own guns--Do you?

2011-07-27T19:35:00.001-07:00

"I've decided to have guns in the house."

Those were the simple words of Iowa Congressman Leonard Boswell, after fending off an armed intruder in his house.

His wife, daughter and grandson were about to hit the sack late Saturday, when the thug broke in, attacking his daughter.

The wily 77 year old tried to stop him, but it was Boswell's grandson's loaded shotgun that caused the punk to flee in the opposite direction.

Yep, if there's one thing you can learn from a shotgun: you never run at one.

Now, publicizing tales like these do nothing but good, for they remind the common thug of a key life or death question: what house would you rob, if you could?

One in which the owner is armed, or not?

And it poses a question to everyone else: if you're the victim, would you rather be armed - or not?

Me - I don't want to depend on the kindness of strangers, I prefer to depend on the accuracy of my shot.

Of course, the biggest gun control advocates will disagree, but they all work in well-protected media networks, surrounded by well-trained, well-armed security.

You don't.

Guns are a conservative, libertarian way of privatizing safety.

It's also the best way to keep good people free.

And bad people scared.

Obama is completely in over his head.

2011-07-18T07:58:00.000-07:00

At the end of last week, Goldman Sachs dropped a bomb that does not bode well for reelection chances of The Chosen One. It goes a little something like this …
Following another week of weak economic data, we have cut our estimates for real GDP growth in the second and third quarter of 2011 to 1.5% and 2.5%, respectively, from 2% and 3.25%.

Our forecasts for Q4 and 2012 are under review, but even excluding any further changes we now expect the unemployment rate to come down only modestly to 8.75% at the end of 2012 …

But the slowdown of recent months goes well beyond what can be explained with these temporary effects. … final demand growth has slowed to a pace that is typically only seen in recessions. .. Moreover, if the economy returns to recession—not our forecast, but clearly a possibility given the recent numbers …

So much for keeping our unemployment rate under 8% if we passed his grand stimulus plan. This is also coupled with news of the worst consumer confidence since March 2009. A Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan index of consumer confidence fell to 63.8, which is the lowest level since the early months of Obama’s presidency. Of course, Bloomberg News reported this fall in confidence as “unexpected.”

I know you’ve heard this before .. but this is the worst recovery from a recession since World War II. In the past we’ve relied on growth in the private sector to bring us out of recessions. Government stimulus programs have NEVER done the job. So what’s the big difference this time? The difference is an anti-capitalist named Barack Obama in the White House and a Democrat Party that has become even more radicalized.

Since being sworn in Obama has done absolutely NOTHING that would cause a small businessman – the ones we depend on for new jobs – to say “Now THAT’S more like it! Now let’s get this business going!”

At this point we’re not going to see business become energized until after the 2012 presidential election – and the defeat of Barack Obama.

Let's make a Deal---(No Thanks)

2011-07-16T12:29:00.000-07:00

Could we see a deal today? This is apparently what Barack Obama has told Congressional leaders .. that we need a deal by today or we must start to make contingency plans. This must be because these talks are really starting to crimp the Democrats’ style up there in Washington. Democrat leaders like Nancy Pelosi “are almost too busy” to continue listening to what is going on in the debt limit meetings. Yup, you heard the woman! We need to get this situation resolved because we can’t be bothered to keep up with the debate .. it is taking up too much precious time. Princess Nancy was particularly perturbed at the thought of having to drive all the way to Camp David for meetings. God forbid our rulers in Washington have to actually put themselves out to do the job they were hired to do.

But Barack Obama says that he is willing to risk his job over this battle for a long-term deficit deal. Dear Ruler says, “This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this.” This is a crock. You can bet the farm that to Obama his presidency comes first and the fiscal health of this country comes second … or third … or wherever. Any attention he is paying to this situation is centered on preserving his reelection chances. The polls say the voters are concerned – so suddenly Obama is concerned.

But consider his recent history …..

Barack Obama wasn’t insistent on a long-term deficit deal when he ignored the recommendations for his own deficit commission for months.

Barack Obama wasn’t insistent on a long-term deficit deal when he proposed a budget earlier this year that would produce 10 years of deficits totaling $9.5 trillion.

Barack Obama wasn’t insistent on a long-term deficit deal when he signed ObamaCare into law, which will likely add $4 to $6 trillion to the deficit over its first 20 years.

Barack Obama wasn’t insistent on a long-term deficit deal when he increased discretionary spending by nearly 25% his first two years in office.

You can’t help but feel, though, that it will be the Republicans who will probably get the blame for any repercussion from this debt ceiling battle. A new Quinnipiac poll released yesterday shows that most voters (48%) would blame congressional Republicans if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. These results were fueled, I believe, by Mitch McConnell’s hair-brain idea to give the president the power to raise the debt ceiling on his own; Republicans are so worried about being blamed and how this will affect the election in 2012.

The Republicans need to remember that they are in charge in the House because of the energized voters on three basic issues in 2010. It was really very simple:

Smaller government.
Lower government spending.
Lower taxes.

Mitch McConnell needs to remember that the voters did not turn out to the polls and put Republicans into office so that they could make phony spending cuts, increase taxes or come up with hare-brained ideas on giving Obama the power to increase our debt ceiling on his own.

2011-06-24T06:38:00.000-07:00

For the last six weeks, Joe Biden has been hosting “talks” on our budget crisis. As of yesterday, the shit hit the fan. GOP representatives in the talks Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl pulled out of the talks. The reason? The inability to come to an agreement on taxes. We’ll get to more on that in a minute, but the Democrats insist on raising taxes in order to come up with a deficit-reduction package of $4 trillion, which would be tied to an increase in the federal debt limit. The Republicans do not want to raise taxes. And after six weeks of this song and dance, Cantor and Kyl realized that they weren’t getting anywhere. So now the task rests in the hands of Barack Obama, John Boehner and Harry Reid. Meanwhile, Eric Cantor says that he will propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Barack Obama … it’s time to take a stand. Will you fight to increase taxes as your fellow Democrats insist, or will you recognize the effect of lower tax rates on economic behavior? I assume that wealth envy will ultimately prevail.
So what if Democrats manage to convince the Republicans (not like with a Republican-led House) that we need to end the Bush tax cuts and return to the tax rates we had under Bill Clinton. That’s no longer good enough. Why? Because our government spending has grown tremendously since the days of Clinton! Don’t they get it? This isn’t a revenue problem.

It’s a spending problem. Here are some specifics from the Washington Examiner:

In 2000, the last full-year of President Clinton’s administration, tax revenues were 20.6 percent of GDP, according to the CBO. (The White House Office of Management and Budget puts it slightly higher, at 20.9 percent, which places it in a tie with 1944 for the highest ever level in U.S. history). But the CBO’s long-term fiscal outlook released yesterday predicts that by 2035, total spending will reach a stunning 33.9 percent of GDP if lawmakers pursue their predictable course. That means even if revenues returned to the coveted pre-Bush tax cut levels, there would be a 13 percent difference.

Yet President Obama’s former OMB director Peter Orszag has written that, “a sustainable level is more like 3 percent (of GDP) or lower.” So that would put the deficits, even with Clinton-era revenues, at more than four times their sustainable levels.

Increasing taxes is a Democrat strategy to pander to wealthy envy voters. This has nothing to do with our debt or deficit and everything to do with re-election.

Off the cliff

2011-06-23T07:50:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the CBO rocked the news cycle by releasing new estimates on our future fiscal situation. It wasn’t pretty, though that shouldn’t come as a shock to you. The CBO released what is being referred to as a more “politically-realistic alternative scenario.” So these numbers are based on what the CBO expects to happen in the future: the Bush tax cuts will be extended and Medicare spending will not be cut.

So what was the result of these new numbers?

Federal debt as a share of our GDP will be 109% by 2021. By the year 2035, it will be closer to 190% of GDP.

Wow. How in the world did we get to this point? Well Barack Obama surely didn’t help. His own stimulus plan managed to nearly DOUBLE our debt. The Washington Examiner reports:

The 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook, released Wednesday morning, reports that the “the combination of automatic budgetary responses” and Obama’s stimulus “had a profound impact on the federal budget.” According to CBO projections, before Obama’s stimulus became law, federal debt equaled 36 percent of GDP and was projected to decline slightly over the next few years. Instead, thanks in large part to the stimulus, debt reached 62 percent of GDP by 2010.

So in the wake of this news about our debt, what are the Democrats planning to do? They have two ideas.

#1: Spend more money. No, this is not a joke. A headline from Reuters, not from the Onion, reads: Democrats call for new spending in US debt deal. Yesterday, Democrats in the Senate called on Joe Biden to include “new economic stimulus spending” in his deficit reduction talks. You just read the information above … Barack Obama’s grand stimulus plan nearly DOUBLED our debt, and what do we have to show for it?

#2: Increase taxes. Because the CBO numbers assume that the Bush tax cuts will be extended, the Democrats immediately claim that if it wasn’t for the Bush tax cuts, these CBO estimates wouldn’t be nearly as dire. Guess what, they would be. According to the CBO’s own alternative scenario, even if the Bush tax cuts are extended along with the Alternative Minimum Tax, “federal revenues as a share of GDP will still exceed the post-war average by the decade’s end.” Even if the Democrats managed to repeal the Bush tax cuts, therefore increasing taxes on millions of Americans … would that solve our debt crisis? Of course not! I’ve shared the following information with you before, but considering this latest push to repeal the Bush tax cuts, it is worth sharing again …

In a static world repealing these tax cuts would get you about $3 trillion over ten years. Our federal deficit is almost one half of that every year. Static world? That’s the wonderful world of liberalism where you operate on the assumption that nobody ever changes their economic behavior when tax rates go up or down. History shows that when tax rates go some people reduce their economic activity, and other simply shift their earnings around to avoid the higher taxes … and they do it legally.

But don’t believe me; believe the experts at the Heritage Foundation. I’d highly recommend that you read this column in the Wall Street Journal by Brian Riedl:

The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth. I’ll give you just a few of the highlights:

… the much-maligned Bush tax cuts .. caused just 14% of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and that is according to a "static" analysis, excluding any revenues recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts). The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33%), other new spending (32%), net interest on the debt (12%), the 2009 stimulus (6%) and other tax cuts (3%). Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4% of the swing. If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007.

Why are Democrats pushing the repeal of the Bush tax cuts? Because they can’t stand the idea that you can spend your money better and more efficiently than they can. And by “better” I mean that you have the power of choice to spend your money wherever you see fit, without the point of a gun. It takes politicians out of the equation, thereby diminishing their power over you.

The Obama Economy

2011-06-10T07:31:00.000-07:00

The ObamaMedia is beside itself right now .. it can’t seem to understand why or how Barack Obama’s economic policies aren’t translating into jobs and growth. This must be the case because they seem to be caught quite off-guard with all of these “unexpected” jobs figures. Unwilling to blame their savior, Barack Obama, they are now trying to come up with other ways to justify this lousy economy.

I know … let’s blame the Republicans!

Take a look at this headline: Are Republicans Intentionally Sabotaging Economy For Political Gain? Can you believe that? The headline doesn’t ask if Democrats are scaring the diapers off old ladies for political gain. Not, it’s the Republicans sabotaging the economy.

Even though the Democrats held the presidency and the Senate since 2009 (the Democrats have held both houses from 2007 until last year), somehow it is all the Republicans’ fault. The Democrats haven’t presented a budget in how many years now? And it’s the Republicans who are sabotaging the economy? I’ve said it since the day Barack Obama was inaugurated .. I hoped that he would become the greatest president this nation has ever seen and that our economy would flourish over the next years. This is because I care about this country that I love more than I care about a Democrat getting credit for ‘saving’ it. Unfortunately that has not turned out to be the case. I now believe based on the decisions that Obama has made as president, that he has a fundamentally different idea of what makes this nation and our economy great. He is a man who believes in a centrally planned economy and bigger government. How is that working out for us?

If the rate of labor force participation in June 2011 were the same as it was in June 2009 (65.7%), the reported unemployment rate would be 11.2% rather than 9.1%. If June 2011 labor force participation were 66.2%, which is where it was when Obama promised that his “stimulus” program would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8.0%, the June 2011 unemployment rate would come in at 11.9%.

Being a leader means taking ownership of your triumphs and your failures, but with the ObamaMedia in tow, Obama isn’t really forced to do that.

Tony "Bada Bing" Weiner

2011-06-07T07:52:00.001-07:00

That Anthony .. what a weiner!

OK …I’ll leave the weiner jokes to the experts, and to my Twitter followers. Someone did suggest that Barney Frank and Anthony Weiner could open a snack bar in Manhattan … Weiners and Franks. But I digress ….

OK, so Anthony Weiner lied. Big surprise, right? Now we have everyone and their hamster demanding that Weiner resign immediately. Others are saying that Weiner should pull out of contention in the next NYC mayoral election.

Look … he’s a liar. Not the first in Congress, won’t be the last. He’s a symbol of Washington power. These people – and I’m talking on both sides of the aisle – start to believe that they’re so powerful that they can get away with almost anything. Weiner got caught in the zipper of prevarication. That’s gotta hurt … look! He’s crying!

But should he resign? Frankly, I would rather he didn’t. Right now he’s a disgraced leftist House member. If he resigns he will just be replaced with a non-disgraced leftist House member. The disgraced variety of this particular vermin is much less dangerous than the non-disgraced.

As for the possibility of a Weiner being mayor of New York? Sure – that’s going to happen.

Rather than sitting around demanding his resignation, let’s take not of how Weiner handled this debacle when the news first broke. Not only did he lie (par for this hole) but he blamed it all on right-wingers. It was that evil Andrew Breitbart behind this terrible plot to disgrace a very important and effective member of congress. Yeah! That’s it! This is a right-wing plot and the result of all that right-wing hatred out there.

I want Weiner to remain right where he is. First – he’s weakened. Second – we don’t need him hosting a show on CNN (The Weiner Factor?), and third; he stands as a constant reminder of the knee-jerk “blame the right wing” yak squeeze liberals love to float when they’re caught with their pants bulging.

2011-06-06T06:46:00.000-07:00

Some folks in ObamaLand are talking about a new stimulus bill.

Obama’s first stimulus plan cost around $800 billion and change. You are hard pressed to find an economist who will tell you that this $800 billion played any meaningful role in an economic recovery. Remember Dear Ruler telling us that if we didn’t have the stimulus bill unemployment would remain above 9%. Were you paying attention on Friday? Unemployment is still above 9%.

Let me tell you how this stimulus plan was developed. It’s just this simple: Obama comes into office with a mandate to do something to bring us out of the recession and to get people working again. There was a problem though. Obama had no clue what to do. He had no experience he could draw upon to develop a recovery plan. He did have a mindset though, and that mindset was that government is good and the private sector is bad, so whatever was to be done had to strengthen government and involve the private sector only to the degree absolutely necessary. So Obama went to Nancy Pelosi and simply told her to get the Democrat caucus together and instruct them to dust off any and all spending plans they’ve been proposing or considering over the past few years and put them into a giant spending bill. Keep it under one trillion dollars, and we’ll present it to the people as a stimulus bill. Whether or not it really contributes to an economic recovery will be beside the point. The plan will give Democrat members of congress the ability to go to the voters in their home districts with “Look at the money I brought back to our district” newsletters and speeches.

And so it goes--the unions benefited, the public service workers held on for another year, but in the end it did nothing.

They bought his act and now they have to defend him

2011-06-01T06:43:00.000-07:00

It’s no wonder that the ObamaMedia isn’t all that enthused in covering the 2012 presidential election … because it means that somebody is challenging Their Guy … Their almost-a-God … Their Messiah … Barack Obama – the man who had to “step down” to the Oval Office (Now the Offal Office).

The ObamaMedia is my name for the mainstream Washington and New York press corps. Right now, with very rare exception, those in the mainstream media are suffering from a severe case of Obama-awe, or “ObamaAwe.” This awe-inspiring leader of ours has turned the mainstream media into a roaming hoard of zombies who have no desire to report the news in an objective manner. Their job gets in the way of wiping up the drool from their ObamaZombie state of existence. Sufferers of ObamaAwe experience a myriad of symptoms including tingles up their legs, delusional cases of mistaken identity – mistaking Obama for God – or even a lost sense of reality.

For example, the ObamaZombies can’t seem to understand why spending close to $1 trillion of money that we don’t have isn’t working out so well for our economy. Most students who just graduated from a government high school could tell you why our current economic state isn’t all that “shocking” … though the ObamaMedia seems to think it is.

This ObamaAwe is starting to affect their work, as reporters are being forced to cover potential Republican challengers to Obama’s throne. As Politico points out, by this time in 2007, major newspapers and newswires already had assigned reporters to leading candidates in the race for the 2008 presidential bid. Such is not the case with the current crop of Republican candidates. Why would the ObamaMedia want to “go behind enemy lines” and cover the camp that could potentially unseat their Dear Ruler? Would Obama think less of any ObamaMedia member who dared to write a fair news report on a Republican, much less a glowing report? And let’s not forget what happened to the Boston Herald. Its reporters were shut out completely from a local Obama Boston fundraiser after the paper ran a Mitt Romney op-ed on the front page and didn’t give the president’s visit the same “fair” treatment.

What it really comes down to is that the next presidential race is going to force the ObamaMedia to defend “their guy.” They are finally going to have to come to grips with the complete and utter failure of his presidency. When asked to present facts, they will be left with drool stains and quip about racist Americans who don’t support Obama because he is black.

Barack Obama won one election based on nothing but his charisma. Even with four failing years as President of the United States to add to his credentials column, looks like he will have yet another campaign with nothing but his charisma to hang his hat on.

Debbie Does DNC

2011-05-31T07:18:00.000-07:00

The Democrats don’t seem too warm and fuzzy over the proposed Republican plan for Medicare reform. So you may be asking yourself … what is the Democrat plan for Medicare? Let’s let DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Shultz take a crack at that one:

Like I said, the Republicans have a plan to end Medicare as we know it. What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, ‘You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the healthcare insurance market, we’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions. We’re going to give you X amount of dollars and you figure it out.’

Oh, that didn’t really answer the question … did it? After that response, can you tell me any more information about what the Democrats plan to do about our Medicare system? The answer is not only no but hell no. All they have is the fact that people are ignorant and don’t like the idea of changing how their Medicare is handled. So the Democrats’ brilliant plan is to have no plan, but simply demagogue the only reform that actually exists.

How’s that for leadership?

This wasn’t the only piece of brilliance from Debbie Wasserman Shultz over the weekend. According to her the evil Republicans think that illegal immigration is some sort of crime … the horror! Wait, what? Illegal immigration IS a crime, you twit. She says, “the Republican solution that I've seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries, and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all.”

Yep--she said it---I rest my case.

The Rapture was Awesome! : A Report from Heaven

2011-05-23T08:29:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone! It’s me, St.Jeffrey
That’s right, I’m a saint now as I got Raptured up to Heaven last Saturday night.
One of the cool upsides to being a saint is that I get to be the Patron Saint of something. You know, like St Jude is the Patron Saint of Lost Causes or St Ambrose the Patron Saint of Beekeepers.
The downside to that is all the really cool stuff has already been patron-sainted…well, actually almost everything has been patron-sainted. Even the obscure stuff.
About the only things left are waffles, hula hoops, and fire ants.
I’m leaning towards waffles but I have to admit I really like the sound of “St Jeffrey the Patron Saint of Fire Ants”.
Anywho, as you’ve probably figured out by now- you weren’t Raptured. Actually, only a couple hundred of us were Raptured worldwide. So, you probably don’t even know someone who got Raptured.
Let me tell you-
IT WAS AWESOME!!!!
One moment you’re out taking the dog for a walk, carrying your little pooper-scooper thingy cause it’s the law and the next moment-BAM!
You are floating naked toward a far point of bright pure light in the sky.
And you’d think you’d be scared, but you’re not. Or at least embarrassed cause, you know, your junk’s hanging out and all, but you’re not.
What you are is joyful beyond anything you’ve experienced before because you’re filled with the knowledge of God’s total love and acceptance of you.
Which is cool.
And you’re filled with knowledge of the world, the universe, and everything; how it all fits together. And how everything, even the bad and horrible stuff, all fits together and makes sense.
But that also means there’s a deep sense of melancholy too, because you’re suddenly aware of everything in your life. The good, of course, but also all the wrong steps, the paths you might have taken, the missed opportunities. So, melancholy is definitely there. Almost overwhelming for a time. And you wish for just one more day, one more minute, one more second to do all the things you’d left undone, to set things right.
As an example:
As I was rising, Air Force One flew by and President Obama returning from some fundraiser or other, was staring out the window, looking right at me.
And since I’d been Raptured, I was suddenly aware of the totality of the man. The good, the bad. His plans. His place in the scheme of things…
And I was moved…I felt compelled to-waggle my junk at him and shoot him the bird. Cause really, when would I have the chance to do that again?
You left behind guys really might want to keep an eye on that Obama guy. That’s all I’m allowed to say.
I have to admit, it is extremely cool to know so much. Just about everything.
I know the all the answers to mankind’s most vexing questions. For instance-
Does Lindsay Lohan’s carpet match the drapes?
I can definitely tell you, no.
The drapes don’t have genital warts and crabs.
I “m Kidding
That’s one of the first things you learn when you arrive here in Heaven. It is absolutely hilarious. The funniest joke ever! I’m laughing right now just thinking about it.
The story of Creation is absolutely the best way to start off your eternity in Heaven. It all started when……Huh?
Oh…okay…..well, St Michael the Archangel informs me I can’t say anything more about Creation and all.
But, believe me, you will LOL!
But, Jeff, Jeff, I hear you say, that’s all great you’re in Heaven and such but what about me?
Sorry, I almost forgot. I mean, Heaven is just so great. Time means nothing here.
Okay, so you probably don’t know this but you get a second chance for Rapture next year. God the Almighty is nothing if not fair. And a bit of a softy. But He has His limits. That’s it.
I can’t really tell you the date. But, did you know God’s favorite movie is “Groundhog Day”?
True story.
Add it’s pretty easy to catch the next Rapture Express. Just follow the Ten Commandments. That’s just about it.
The whole not taking God’s name in vain thing is what trips most people up.
Saying “shit” or “fuck” any of that kind of stuff is okay, but no God references in your cursing.
And that includes stuff like “gosh darn it!” or even “ding dang it!” for as God Himself puts it:
“Dost thou believe that He, Who created both Heaven and Earth, the Stars and the Oceans, the Fish in the Sea and the Birds of the Air, doth not recognize a euphemism when He hears one?”
So…you’ve been warned.
And I know we like to think that politics has little or nothing to do with getting to Heaven however, if you’re a lefty, a progressive, a liberal, a commie, or a socialist, you’ve spent your whole life breaking the “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods” deal no matter what justifications you tell yourself. That doesn’t make you a good person. Think about it.
And last, but certainly not least, cause there’s like a billion of you guys, Muslims you might want to rethink that whole murdering, raping, stealing, jihad for God thing as that all goes directly against the Ten Commandments.
You see, Mohammed was one of God’s little jokes. Really. Your prophet was a murdering, raping, child-molesting, neurologically-damaged, epileptic thief. And that didn’t tip you off?
God still shakes his head over that one.
Anyway, you’ve got a year to convert- Buddhist, Christian, Shinto, Hindu, Jainist, whatever- they all follow the Ten Commandments or their version. Lots of each of those in Heaven. You guys, not so much…. anyway think about it.
Well, I’m off to go sing the Praises of God, which you think would get old, but it never does! He is just so awesome!
If you have any questions about life, the universe, etc, just write them in to me in an email. If I’m allowed to answer, I will.
But, hurry, otherwise the only way you’ll be able to communicate with me is to ask for my intercession when cooking crispy, delicious, golden-brown waffles- or help with your fire ant infestation…
Not sure which…

Don't taze me Bro

2011-05-10T07:04:00.000-07:00

You have to admit, this has been fun. I’m talking about the efforts of the Obamajahadeen to try to have it both ways on the issues of “enhanced interrogation” (let’s just call it torture) and capping Osama bin Laden. It’s laughable, really. Here we have doing a victory lap around the country telling everyone what a gutsy call Obama made sending the Seals after bin Laden … all the while denying that any of the intelligence information which led to bin Laden came from enhanced interrogation techniques. We know that’s how much of the information was gathered, and they know that’s how much of the information was gathered; and we know that they know that we know that’s how the information was gathered … yet they continue with their vapid denials. One of the problems, of course, is that to admit that the enhanced interrogations techniques led to the end of OBL would be to admit that Obama’s greatest whipping boy, George W. Bush, actually had it right.

Are you one of the Filthy Rich?

2011-05-05T07:05:00.000-07:00

It’s now official. We’ve been heading to this for quite a while … and now we’re there. Critical mass. More than half of households in America do not pay federal income taxes. For 2009, the latest year for which figures are available, 51% of U.S. households owed no federal income tax.

From the Wall Street Journal:
A 2008 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, for example, found that the highest-earning 10% of the U.S. population paid the largest share among 24 countries examined, even after adjusting for their relatively higher incomes. "Taxation is most progressively distributed in the United States," the OECD study concluded.

Meanwhile, the percentage of U.S. households paying no federal income tax has been climbing, and reached 51% for 2009, according to a new analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation. That was the first time since at least 1992 that more than half of households owed no federal income tax, according to JCT estimates.; earlier data were unavailable on Monday.

Are you following this? The OECD says that our tax system is the most progressive among 24 large economies studied ---- yet our re-distributor in chief says that the rich really aren’t paying their fair share. They just need to pay more.

And when you have over one-half of the people in this country not paying any income taxes – and from that you can suppose that over one-half of eligible voters don’t pay income taxes – how easy is it for a politician to talk about raising taxes on the evil rich?

And while these pitiful people just don’t make enough money to shoulder one single dollar of the cost of operating our government, almost 90% of U.S. households have cable or satellite TV service. As for the 49% of suckers who are sharing the burden, my guess is that that number will only continue to shrink as more and more Americans become dependent on government and there is less incentive to produce.

No Body Armor - No Playgrounds

2011-05-05T07:02:00.000-07:00

The ObamaMedia is starting to fret … about the children. NBC’s Today Show is upset [video]over the images of Americans celebrating Osama bin Laden’s death, and they believe that these images may be disturbing for the children.

Well of course! Everything we do in this country – every action and every breath – is judged solely by the impact it will have on our precious and vastly over-coddled children. Give Washington a few more years and regulations will require that our precious children sit in booster seats right up until the time they get their driver’s license. I have it on good authority that by the end of August the feds will have issued regulations requiring all children to wear motorcycle style body armor when riding bicycles and forbidding children from climbing anything over three feet tall without adult supervision and helmets.

So NBC is upset that we’re showing our happiness that OBL is dead. Children might be disturbed. Awwwwww. I’ll tell you what would be even more disturbing for the children … losing their parents in a terrorist attack on this country.

Where do we file this story? In that file folder marked “Wussification.”

Screw the UN

2011-05-04T06:10:00.000-07:00

Uh oh .. here comes the United Nations, a worthless excuse for an international organization whose primary goal is to redistribute wealth around the world. But the United Nations top human rights official called on the United States yesterday to provide the U.N. with full details of Osama’s killing to ensure that we complied with international law.

Does Obama have the guts to tell the UN to go screw itself? No … I mean that; literally. The United Nations has no standing whatsoever to demand any details of this raid from the United States.

The insipid United Nations can take its international law and shove it up their collective anti-American Anti-Semitic ass..

The United Nations is not one to talk when it comes to human rights abuses .. we are talking about an organization that put Sudan and Libya on its human rights council – and Syria will probably soon be added. Osama bin Laden is responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans and was the most wanted terrorist throughout the world. We found him and we took care of it. We even gave him a proper burial. Now what exactly is the problem here?

Those God-Damned Oil Company Pigs.

2011-05-03T06:35:00.000-07:00

OK ... let’s get started with those hideous oil companies and all of that money they’re making off the backs of poor Americans just trying to fill their gas tanks. Obama, as you know, has really been pressing in the last week or so to end all of those subsidies and tax breaks for “big oil.” Most of us know that it’s just a play to America’s uneducated myrmidons who wallow in wealth envy every day of their lives.

Have you ever put any thought at all into just who owns these companies? It’s one thing for Obama and his leftist, anti-capitalist friends to talk about “Big Oil,” but someone owns those companies, right? Someone is getting rich off of all those profits, right? Those are the people we should be going after!

Well .. let’s look at the ownership of these companies. They’re all corporations, so that means they’re owned by their stockholders. So who owns the stock? I’m pretty sure that you and most Americans think that the majority of the stock in these oil companies is owned by the corporate titans ... the presidents of the companies, their high-ranking officers and, of course, the members of the boards of directors. Well, if you think that 1.5% constitutes a majority of the stock, you would be correct. That’s right ... just 1.5% of the stock in the major oil companies is owned by the corporate management of those companies. Looks like we have about 98.5% of the stock left!

Let’s cut to the chase. The biggest share of the stock in these oil companies, 29.5%, is owned by mutual funds. Now do you happen to have any of your money invested in mutual funds? Why don’t you check with the managers of those funds to see if they have any holdings in Chevron or ExonMobile? Maybe you are one of the people you’ve been slamming as gas prices go up.

Here’s another 27% share of oil company stocks for you .... pension funds. That’s right, pension funds! And we’re not talking about pension funds for rich capitalists. We’re talking pension funds for teachers, firemen, policemen, miners ... what you might call “working class” people. Let’s tax those pension funds a bit more to help us through these tough economic times, right? That’s right – tax pension funds. Are you such an ObamaBot that you don’t realize that when the government seizes oil company profits through higher taxes, that is money that will not be paid to pension funds and other stockholders through dividends? I know most Americans are just that ignorant --- but you are, after all, listening to talk radio, so you really should know better.

The next largest group of owners in oil company stocks? That would be individual investors. Individual investors – like your next door neighbor – own 23% of big oil. These are the people who are working with stock brokers looking for places to invest their hard-earned money. They really should be punished for investing in evil big oil, don’t you think?

The next largest group is IRAs. IRAs account for 14% of all outstanding shares in big oil. Again --- maybe you think it would be a better idea if the money being earned by these IRAs would be better off being spent by Obama and his pals on some grand new entitlement program.

The last 5%? They’re listed as “other institutional investors.” Maybe some of these are foreign investors. Who knows? One thing for sure --- this 5% needs to be punished as well, right?

Actually … what Obama may really be after here is looking for an excuse to nationalize big oil. After all, any business so thoroughly evil yet so essential to our economy really should be put under complete government control, right? After all, 15 out of the 16 largest oil and gas companies in the world are owned by governments, the largest being Saudi Arabian Oil Co. with 19.19% of all proven worldwide reserves. ExxonMobil controls less than one percent of worldwide reserves … clearly a behemoth that must be brought to its knees.

That’s enough numbers on evil big oil for today …. Obama will continue his demagoguery against the oil companies as the price of gasoline continues to rise

Here is the winner of head up the ass for today

2011-03-16T07:20:00.000-07:00

Princess Pelosi's quote couldn't top this braindead quote, which illustrates the brilliance of the liberal mentality. Here's the context. Twitter is currently headquartered in San Francisco. But it is thinking of moving its headquarters to a city where its taxes would be lower. As of right now, Twitter has to pay a 1.5% payroll tax in San Francisco. It is considering moving to where it does not have to pay the payroll tax .. unless San Francisco approves a six-year tax break. The vote on that tax break is today.

So this brings us to John Avalos, a member of the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee. He says that the proposal doesn't seem fair, considering the financial struggles of residents in his district. He says, "Who are the [Twitter] investors? Probably some of the wealthiest people in this country. And we are giving them more wealth."

"We are giving them more wealth." This is a typical theme of liberals. When you allow people to keep more of the money they have earned by lowering taxes, liberals can be depended on to make mindless comments about "giving" to the rich. The liberal philosophy just does not want to recognize the concept of earned income. Why not? You need to remember that liberals are all about redistributing wealth. To support the concept of government mandated wealth redistribution you have to create a false reality where all wealth is owned by government. After all, how are you going to distribute or redistribute something that belongs to someone else? So by operating on the premise that all wealth belongs to the government ... or to "the people," as liberals might prefer phrasing it ... you can make asinine statements about "giving" money to people or companies through tax breaks.

Remember folks, government creates NO wealth. Government SEIZES wealth. The government cannot "give" anything to anyone that it does not first take from someone else. But according to this moonbat in San Francisco, a tax break means that we are "giving them more wealth." Unbelievable. Where do we find these people? Oh that's right .. in San Francisco.

Pelosi--WTF?

2011-03-16T07:18:00.000-07:00

Princess Pelosi came close to winning the award for rectal-cranial inversion moment of the day with this comment ..

"Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility as a top priority of this Congress."

It doesn't take a government educated union goon to figure out that she is full of moosesqueeze. Under Nancy Pelosi's 111th Congress, federal spending increased by 21%. That's just in two years! In 2010, Congress spent $3.45 trillion, which was the second largest spending spree on record ... second only to the spending spree of the 111th Congress in 2009. Are you calling this fiscal responsibility? But wait, there's more!

When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, the debt held by the public was 36.2% of GDP. It rose to 40.2% the next year. This year it will be about 63.6%, next year 68.6%, then 77% of GDP in 2020. And the Obama administration's budget estimates 218% in 2050.
The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2020.
Also consider the fact that a Democrat-led Washington has been operating this last year without a budget! As Republican Rep. Mike Simpson says, this is a bunch of horsesqueeze .. or as he calls it, a "pile of crap": "They left the American people in this country with this pile of crap. They should not complain about how we tried to clean this up."

The real reason the unions are suicidal--$$$$$$$$$

2011-03-11T07:21:00.000-08:00

It's not necessarily the collective bargaining rights that have union officials so frightened. It's the dues check-off. Dues check-off? What's that? That's a system whereby the employer - in this case the government - deducts union dues from paychecks and pass them directly on to the unions. Unions love this because sometimes union members actually get the idea that perhaps they have better things to spend their money on than union dues ... dues that can reach over $1000 a year in some cases. These dues are a tremendous source of power for union officials. It is the union officials who decide where this money goes ... not the rank-and-file members ... and union officials generally decide that when it comes to campaign contributions that money goes to Democrats. The follow-the-money scenario here is really very simple. Union members pay dues, and union leaders get paid massive salaries from those dues. Usuallly in the six-figure range. The union leaders then arrange for huge union campaign contributions to Democrats. About 95% of union donations go to Democrats. The Democrats then do all that they can to make sure that the dues keep flowing to the unions and the union leaders so that those campaign contributions don't stop. The Democrats do this by promoting forced unionization and other union-friendly policies. In Wisconsin, they failed - and you can imagine the panic. The Democrats and union leaders must do everything in their power to prevent any further erosion of union power. Calling Scott Walker Hitler, destroying taxpayer property and assaulting non-union advocates is just a beginning.

Bad news for unions? The earthquake and tsunami in Japan has sucked all of the air out of the Wisconsin union story ... for now, anyway. Funny how that happens.

P.J.= Dickwad

2011-03-05T06:56:00.001-08:00

So, when I hear of an act of terror, an internal clock starts clicking.

I wonder, how long before we find out the suspect is a radical Islamist.

And then, how long before that affiliation is rejected as vital to the crime.

Witness the murderous acts against our military in Frankfurt: it was only a matter of hours before the killer's links to radical Islam were exposed.

And it was only a few hours later, that we saw an Administration official dismiss that notion.

Here we have P. J. Crowley, bringing back memories - not only of Tucson, but of Ft. Hood, too.

Reporter-Even if somebody is acting alone, it's not a terrorist attack?
Crowley: For example, was the shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords a terrorist attack. I mean, you have to look at the evidence, you have to look at the evidence and look at the motivation then you make a judgment and that is a process as far as I know that is ongoing.

Yeah. He went there.

P.J., which must stand for "poor judgment," actually compared a horrible crime linked to radical Islam, to whatever was bubbling in Jared Loughner's damaged head.

So does P.J. actually believe these crimes are alike? Is he that dim?

I mean, with that hypothetical yammer, Crowley not only minimized the nature of the terrorist threat, but also implied he still may believe the attack on Giffords was part of a greater movement.

And so a killer can shout Allahu Akbar - just like at Ft. Hood - and the Administration still won't "commit." They only see a man with no affiliation– because decades of ingrained political correctness have taught them to be fearful of pointing out that affiliation. It's bigotry, after all.

Look, making no mention of terror, won't make terror go away.

All it does is expose the biggest weakness our country has: leaders with spines like spaghetti.

FOX News bring Enlightenment

2011-03-02T07:18:00.000-08:00

So in a blog post at FrumForum (it's like Penthouse Forum, minus the sex), a writer details a phenomenon called "Fox Geezer Syndrome."

It's when your elderly parents become politically energized, thanks to watching so much Fox News.

Richmond Ramsey, a pseudonym for "wussface," slams his mom, thusly:

I don't know when it happened, exactly, but she began peppering our conversation with red-hot remarks about President Obama. I would try to engage her, but unless I shared her particular judgment, and her outrage, she apparently thought that I was a dupe or a RINO. Even though we're all conservatives, I found myself having to steer our phone conversations away from politics and current events.
...It wasn't that I disagreed with their opinions - though I often did - but rather that I found the vehemence with which they expressed those opinions to be so off-putting.

And so your parents are embarrassing reactionaries, cuz they chose Beck over Oprah.

Look, Ramsey has a point - for many people Beck has been an energizing influence. But he hasn't turned the elderly into pitchfork-waving neanderthals. Some, thanks to Beck, are reading more, and buying more books. And some are investing in food storage. I bought an underground trampoline made of gold.

The gist in this condescending piece: your parents are stupid because they are easily swayed by tv. And because they never had strong opinions before, their current emotional state must be manufactured. Unlike, of course, their more sophisticated offspring - who are young, pragmatic and smart. Pop's just cranky, old and reactionary.

And of course, the blogger must bring up the Tuscon shooting. Yep, maybe you should worry about mom and dad, since, "passion is the enemy of clear thought and...the prerequisite for mob rule."

Man, what a dumb thing to say about the folks who gave you life and raised you.

And who might also drop you from the will.

As an aside---I'm one of those geezers, however my children have been avoiding me their entire lives. It's not that I'm opinionated--I'm just opinionated.

The Fight Is On

2011-02-28T09:23:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama is under increased pressure lately from his fellow Democrats. The issue, of course, is Wisconsin. While Obama has come out in support of the collectivist union mentality -- calling the Governor's bill "an assault on the unions" -- many leftists are saying that this is no longer good enough. He needs to do more. The Community Organizer needs to do what community organizers do best! Head to Wisconsin and promote a little mob rule! Stand with the government workers against the taxpayers! In fact back in 2007, this is exactly what Obama said he would do ... that he'd be walking the picket lines in solidarity with workers if unions were ever threatened. So now that time has come. The precious unions are being "threatened." They're being threatened with the idea that they should pay part of their own retirement and health care. They're being beaten over the head with the idea that they should not be able to use collective bargaining tactics to loot the public treasury by negotiating with the very politicians they hired through their campaign donations and election volunteering! So now, will Obama have the Bidens to really take a stand? Come on, Barack ole buddy! Head to Madison and march with your union brothers and sisters! March for the idea that the most important workers in America work for government! March for the idea that private businesses and private-sector workers exist for no purpose other than to support the government sector and government workers!

Thus far what we've been getting from the Obama cadre is pretty much rhetoric - though it has been amping up a bit.

In the meantime, his administration is upping its rhetoric on the issue as well. Obama's Labor Secretary Hilda Solis says, "The fight is on." She says, "We work together. We help those embattled states right now where public employees are under assault." Now wait a minute ... "the fight is on?" Isn't that rhetoric just a little bit violent for the peaceful left in this country? Maybe Hilda has been talking to Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Michael Capuano. Just last week at a Boston "solidarity" rally the peaceful Mr. Capuano said "I'm proud to be here with people who understand that it's more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary." Hmmm .... The Marxist in the White House is telling the unions that they're "under assault, the Secretary of Labor saying "the fight is on," and a Massachusetts Democrat talking about getting "a little bloody when necessary" ... more proof of all of that dangerous Tea Party rhetoric that is endangering our politicians out there, right? Only these were Democrats. Dang ... I'm so confused. Here I thought that the violent rhetoric was supposed to come from the right .. and then Solis and Capuano come along and futz things up like this. I mean ...couldn't those words perhaps encourage some violence-prone union types to get a bit physical there in Wisconsin? Well ... if that does happen, you can count on the ObamaMedia to ignore the violent rhetoric from the left and try to blame it either on Sarah Palin, talk radio or the Tea Parties.

Some things just never change.

Senator Bill Nelson is a Schmuck!

2011-02-25T06:49:00.000-08:00

Democrat (of course) Senator Bill Nelson from Florida is slamming Governor Rick Scott for turning down a few billion dollars that we don't have for a rapid rail project between Tampa and Orlando that we don't need. Consider, if you will, Senator Nelson's reasoning. He says that turning down the money will cost thousands of jobs in Florida.

So ... there you have it, straight from the Democrat's mouth. You don't build the high-speed rail project because it is actually needed, or because it will actually be financially viable. You build it so that thousands of Floridians will be employed in the project.

Gator squeeze. (That's Gator shit--for those of you who live in Miami)

Using Nelson's logic - that you spend the money to create jobs - wouldn't it make more sense just to taken the billions and dole it out to unemployed Floridians? That way you could put ALL of the money into the hands of the poor, poor pitiful jobless Floridians without wasting any of it on such things as purchasing right-of-way, concrete cross-ties, steel rails, electric locomotives, passenger cars and other expensive stuff. By just handing the billions to unemployed Floridians you would not be creating future liabilities for Florida taxpayers.

Are we this stupid on Human Rights?

2011-02-25T06:44:00.000-08:00

The United Nations is such a joke. Always has been ... still is. We are talking about an organization that exists for two principal purposes, weakening America and redistribution of wealth ... particularly America's wealth.

For 60 years we had an essentially useless body called the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. It eventually became so corrupt and lacking in credibility that it was dissolved in 2006. Do you remember when Sudan engaged in a program of ethnic cleansing in its Darfur region? That happened right after Sudan was placed on the Human Rights Council. That should give you an idea of why nobody took this commission seriously. One of the final anchors that sunk the U.N. Commission on Human Rights was nominating ... Libya! ... as the commission's president. So this defunct commission decided to regroup and "tighten" its criteria for membership to create the current Human Rights Council. I'm not entirely sure what criteria they used to elect members, but we have countries like Libya, Cuba, China and others that don't have the greatest track records when it comes to human rights sitting on this council to decide on human rights violations.

But then who are we kidding? This isn't really about human rights, is it? Now up until 2009, the United States refused to be a part of any of this Human Rights Council (we were kicked off of the last commission). But the great Community Organizer thought it would be a wise idea to reserve the Bush boycott and join the new Human Rights Council in 2009, saying the U.S. could most effectively push it to improve by being a member. Yeah ... right. So now we have a chance to test that theory.

So what is the Human Rights Council doing about the fact that one of its member nations, at the direction of a crazy dictator, is killing its citizens in cold blood? They've sent word to Quadaffi that "Killing your people is bad. Stop it. Stern letter to follow." Yup ... the Human Rights Council is going to call a special session to draft a letter. Wow, sounds pretty ruthless, eh? And fear not, my friends! Libya will get to keep its seat on the United Nations Human Right Council as there hasn't been one call for it to be kicked off the council.

Keep in mind that this is the same Human Rights Commission that Barack Obama submitted a report to about Arizona and its efforts to secure the border and enforce federal immigration policy on the state level.

Columbia and a Hero

2011-02-24T08:15:00.000-08:00

So Anthony Maschek is a student at Columbia University - where he's studying economics.

But he's also a veteran of the Iraq War.

He was recently awarded a Purple Heart, after being shot 11 times in Iraq. He spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and still has to get around in a wheelchair.

He sounds like a pretty amazing guy - someone you'd want to buy a beer or two, given the chance.

Unless, of course, you might be a student at Columbia.

See, Maschek was speaking during a meeting last week at the school, on the topic of getting the ROTC program back on campus. While trying to explain the need for a strong military, he was shouted at, laughed at and called a racist.

It was like he was facing a poltergeist made up of Huffington Post bloggers.

Yeah, some Columbia students suck.

But, look - the fact that they disrespected the soldier only underlines how silly they are. And more important, their behavior serves to remind us that this crap still goes on.

Fact is, we live in a culture where reality TV trumps reality, patriotism seems quaint, and no-talent teeny boppers gain more respect and adulation than our boys at war. We got kids who think Justin Bieber is hipper than soldiers.

That bugs me.

Anyway, I hope their stupidity, heard by many, prevents them from ever getting a job or having sex with people who bathe.

That'll only leave them with one option - working at Columbia.

A little enlightenment

2011-02-23T08:41:00.000-08:00

While unions continue to dominate the news, I figured I would give you a few little facts I found from the Heritage Foundation. Take these facts, absorb them and continue to ask yourself .... are unions making a positive impact on our economy? I'll bet you can already answer that question. But here are some specifics to fill in the blanks.

Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.

Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns.

Some unions win higher wages for their members, though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else. On balance, labor cartels harm the economy, and enacting policies designed to force workers into unions will only prolong the recession.

Studies typically find that unionized companies earn profits between 10 percent and 15 percent lower than those of comparable non-union firms. Unlike the findings with respect to wage effects, the research shows unambiguously that unions directly cause lower profits. Profits drop at companies whose unions win certification elections but remain at normal levels for non-union firms. One recent study found that shareholder returns fall by 10 percent over two years at companies where unions win certification.

In essence, unions "tax" investments that corporations make, redistributing part of the return from these investments to their members. This makes undertaking a new investment less worthwhile. Companies respond to the union tax in the same way they respond to government taxes on investment--by investing less. By cutting profits, unions also reduce the money that firms have available for new investments, so they also indirectly reduce investment.

Research shows that unions directly cause firms to reduce their investments. In fact, investment drops sharply after unions organize a company. One study found that unionizing reduces capital investment by 30 percent--the same effect as a 33 percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate.

Economists have found that unions delay economic recoveries. States with more union members took considerably longer than those with fewer union members to recover from the 1982 and 1991 recessions.
Now imagine if our government - state and federal - were forced to run like a business, without its unique ability to levy and collect taxes ...... me thinks our country would have gone Tango Uniform (T-U-or Tits Up for you non-military folks) ages ago.

They Ran Away--Democrats STOP the democratic process.

2011-02-18T06:50:00.000-08:00

You did hear what the Democrats in the state legislature did yesterday, didn't you? They bailed. They didn't phone in sick, like the teachers unions did. They just left town. In the Wisconsin Senate at least 20 out of 33 senators have to be present in order to do any business and vote on any bills. The Republicans have the majority of seats in the Wisconsin Senate, but that majority is only 19 seats. This means they need to have at least one Democrat Senator in chambers before they can do business. So what if the Democrats do? They didn't show up! They left town! In fact, they left the state! They went to the Best Western Clock Tower Resort in Rockford, Illinois. They left the state because the governor has the authority to call out to the police and force lawmakers into session in order to reach a quorum. So how's that for the legislative process in Wisconsin? Don't you love it when Democrats lose an election and control of the legislature? One Democrat senator told the media that the Democrats were going simply to prevent the Republicans from engaging in any business. Another Democrat senator said that they were staying away in order to give the union demonstrators more time to change the minds of Republican legislators. In other words, the Democrats were abandoning their legislative function so that the mob could wield influence in their place. Now, since the Democrats are completely owned by labor unions, this should not surprise you, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't disgust you.

Make no mistake, my friends, this is a war. This is a war between the taxpayers of this country and the government sector unions that have been plundering the taxpayers for years. From California to New York we have state governments who were in dire financial straits principally because of the benefits that had been negotiated through collective bargaining by public sector unions. In a union negotiation with a private business owner, the business owner has some skin in the game. The business owner knows that if he gives too much to the union, it may jeopardize his very business. When a government employee union negotiates with the city, county or a state government, the government officials who are engaged in the negotiation have NO skin in the game. They know that whatever benefits they negotiate with the union they will just be able to pass off on the poor suffering taxpayers. They also know that negotiations involving grandiose fringe benefits for government union workers will seldom reach the awareness of the taxpayer, but will always earn the gratitude of the union member. This means votes. This means union contributions. This means reelection. This means the continuation of the politician's life of power, prestige and perks.

You might have detected that I don't like unions. That's because I don't like mobs. I'm an individualist. I believe in the sanctity of the individual. Mob action is almost always irrational and self-defeating. Having said that, I can understand and can verbalize a positive role to be played by unions in our country. Let's say, for instance, that a worker refuses to handle a piece of machinery because he believes it to be inherently dangerous. His supervisor becomes so irate with the workers' obstinance that he fires them. A new worker is hired and subsequently is gravely injured by the malfunctioning piece of equipment. In a union environment, there would have been protection for the whistle blowing worker. Those same protections can be afforded through law without the need for mob action however. I would not support any law that outlaws private sector unions. Nor would I support any law that requires a worker to be a member of a private sector union. But it is well past time that we outlaw government sector unions. These union workers in Wisconsin seem to be fond of comparing Gov. Scott Walker with Adolf Hitler. That's rather ironic when you consider the fact that the man who did actually fight Adolf Hitler, FDR, was a steadfast opponent of government sector unions. I guess that little nuance is lost on the Madison mob.

So, today in America far more taxpaying citizens have had their eyes opened to the power and the threat of government employee unions. They see the mobs descending on Madison, Wisconsin, and they asked themselves if this is what they really want to pay for with their taxes. Unions are massively overplaying their hand in Wisconsin. It's a beautiful thing to see.

Public Sector Unions UNMASKED

2011-02-18T06:43:00.001-08:00

Yesterday, I think, was a good day for America. It was a day when America saw the true face of government sector unions. Yesterday, Wisconsin became Greece, and Madison became Athens. Government union workers gathered by the thousands in Wisconsin's capital to protest Gov. Scott Walker's plans to rein in the constant abuse of the Wisconsin taxpayers by government employee unions. America - or at least that part of America that is paying attention - now understands that government employee unions have declared an all-out war on the taxpayers.

Unions are mobs, and it was a mob you saw descending on the Wisconsin Capitol yesterday. Mobs don't think. Mobs react. A thinking individual would not hold aloft a sign comparing the governor of Wisconsin to Adolf Hitler. An unthinking member of the mob would, as you could see yesterday by the union signs depicting Walker as Hitler. Mobs are easy to manipulate. That is the role of the union leaders. The leaders of the Wisconsin government sector unions are manipulating the mob for the purpose of preserving their own power and the fat incomes that come with being a labor leader. These union leaders have known for years that this day of reckoning over the state budget would come. They've also known that they would have to find a way to take this reckoning and turn it into a confrontation for their own benefit.

Just what is it that Scott Walker and the Republicans in the state legislature want of these government sector unions? Well, they want them to put 5.8% of their wages toward their own retirement. Imagine that! Contributing to your own retirement! Oh, the humanity! They also want government employees to cover 12.6% of their health care premiums. This, of course, is an outrageous concept for Democrats. People just should not be responsible for their own health care. That's the employer's job ... or the government. This, to these pampered and overpaid union members, seems like the end of the world. The fact is that even with those payments into their own retirement plan and into their health care premiums they would still be paying $100 a month less than the average private sector employee pays in Wisconsin. The unions acknowledge that there's a budget problem, but they have a better way of dealing with it. Raise taxes! It's as simple as that. Just raise taxes on the rich and on the businesses. Just do what you have to do to keep the money flowing into the state so that they can continue to be paid more than their private-sector colleagues would be paid for the same work; and so that they don't have to contribute anything to their own retirement or to their own health care. That is the union way.

Why do I think yesterday was a good day for America? Once again, because Americans saw what these unions are really all about. Even though they recognize and accept the financial disaster facing their state government and other state governments around the country, the union workers see no need for them to be a part of the solution. Their message to the politicians is "Hey! You know how to raise taxes. Get out there and do it!"

Yesterday was a good day for America because the people of this country, already beginning to harbor strong suspicions about the negative role that government employee unions are playing in our economy, finally had those suspicions born out. Teachers unions, the most powerful of all -- and the most feared by Democrats -- called in sick. It was a lie. They weren't sick. They wanted to be paid to demonstrate instead of teach! Now they're union leaders will tell you that the state actually called a work holiday. Not true. The illegal strike came first, in the form of a sickout. Well over 1000 teachers called in the night before the big demonstration and said they would not be at work the next day because they were ill. Did they go to the doctor ? You know they didn't. They painted their signs, grabbed some students and headed for Madison. They lied, and they engaged in an illegal work stoppage. The people of Wisconsin saw it, and the people of America saw it. And today the people of this country have a clearer understanding of just how lawless and how dangerous government sector unions can be.

The people of Wisconsin voiced their concerns at the polls last November. They elected a Republican legislature and they put a Republican governor in office. They were tired of the spending, tired of the deficits, and tired of the debt that their children were going to have to pay off. They were also tired of government sector unions riding roughshod, not only over the legislative powers, but also over the voters. They voted for a change. But, as an editorial in the Madison newspaper put it, the unions are determined that they will have the last word, and they will have the loudest word. Mob rule is now in effect.

Do you get it now? Do you see what's coming? Government union workers are prepared to go to war against the taxpayers to protect their jobs and benefits. They make more than their private-sector counterparts? So what? They don't have to contribute to their own retirement plans or health care? So what? They enjoy retirement benefits that private-sector workers can only fantasize about? So what? Just get those rich people out there to pay more in taxes and everything is going to be fine. We're union, people, and we can shut this government down if we want to. Be careful who you pick a fight with. The rich will surrender to higher taxes. We won't surrender to fiscal responsibility.

Take the test--Then--bend over and assume the position...

2011-02-16T07:11:00.000-08:00

Name one, just one, government program in history that actually cost we were told it would cost upon its inception.

Come on, I'm waiting! I don't have all day here. Oh! You give up? Yeah ... so did I. I've been asking that question for years, and no one can give me an adequate response.

Next question:

Tell me why do you think ObamaCare will be any different?

Here's the latest report that should scare the socks off of you ... from CNSNews:

The Department of Health and Human Services will become the nation's first-ever $1-trillion-per-year Cabinet department in 2014, which is also the first year President Barack Obama's health-care law is scheduled to be fully implemented by that department, according to the budget projections President Obama released yesterday.

In fact, HHS already is costing American taxpayers more per year in inflation-adjusted dollars than the entire federal government cost back in 1965, the year President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed Medicare into law.

One trillion dollars per year. Unbelievable. To put things in perspective, supposedly Obama's grand budget plan would cut projected deficits by $1.1 trillion ... over the next 10 years. That's his big plan - to cut $1 trillion from our deficit over ten years. It won't happen ... not with his budget, and he knows it. He's also very upset that the media is exposing his gimmicks. But back to the point ... on the one hand he talks about a vaporous $1 trillion reduction in the deficit, and on the other hand he's building the country's first $1 trillion agency. Just where to you think all this is going? A weakened America, that's where.

Tax increase found so far from a president's budget that he says lowers taxes and cuts the deficit

2011-02-15T09:46:00.000-08:00

Â· Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%. This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike

Â· Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%

Â· Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike

Â· Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike

Â· New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years

Â· New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years

Â· New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years

Â· Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years

Â· Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years

Â· Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership ("carried interest") as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years

Â· A giveaway to the trial lawyers--not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years

Â· Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.

Is this the type of change you want to believe in? Or is it just more Bullshit? This president can only maintain power by consent of the governed. It's the same for your senators and Congresscritters. Better wake up people!

This president is killing us.

2011-02-15T09:37:00.000-08:00

The more details we come to learn about the ObamaBudget, the less enthused I become. Not that I was all that impressed to begin with, but it truly seems like we have another Obamanation on our hands. Considering this moment in our history - considering the Tea Party movement's call for fiscal reform, considering the monumental election on 2010, and considering our unprecedented level of spending - you would think that Obama's budget would somehow reflect our urgent need for big change. Wasn't that his word, after all -- Change? Well it seems as though the change that Obama imagined is not the type of change that we need. We need to change the course of programs in this country that are running us dry and crippling our future. Instead, we get even more government, more regulations and more spending. This is not change .... this is simply the George Bush administration on steroids.

So what kind of goodies are we learning as we weed our way through Obama's budget? Let's start with this one from CNSNews: "If the federal budget released by President Barack Obama today is implemented, it will double the national debt over the next 10 years. The current national debt is $13.56 trillion (end of FY 2010). By the end of 2021, that debt would rise to $26.3 trillion under the White House budget."

Or, here's another way to look at it. This from the Washington Times: "President Obama projects that the gross federal debt will top $15 trillion this year, officially equaling the size of the entire U.S. economy, and will jump to nearly $21 trillion in five years' time." Read that again, folks ... our federal debt will equal the size of our entire economy. How can we be expected to grow our way out of something as daunting as that? Or you can think about it like this: The president's budget said debt as a percentage of GDP will top out at 106 percent in 2013 and will stabilize at about 105 percent in the middle of this decade. However ... and this is a big "however" ... this assumes economic growth levels significantly above those projected by the CBO. In other words, those are low-ball figures unless something seriously kick-starts in our economy.

Here's another goodie for you! From the Cato Institute ... Since 2001, spending has skyrocketed in almost every part of the budget. Even with the supposed "cuts" in Obama's budget, here's what the spending increases in some federal bureaucracies will look like:

Â· 112 percent more spending for the Department of Agriculture;

Â· 100 percent more spending for the Department of Education;

Â· 154 percent more spending for the Department of Energy;

Â· 110 percent more spending for the Department of Health and Human Services;

Â· 175 percent more spending for the Department of Labor; and

Â· 82 percent for the Department of Transportation.

Still not getting the picture? Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute takes a look at Obama's budget compared to 2008 ...

Â· Total federal spending jumped from $2.98 trillion in 2008 to $3.82 trillion in 2011. Obama's budget has outlays at $3.73 trillion in 2012, but that's still up 25 percent from 2008. Spending in 2011 is the highest share of GDP since WWII at 25.3 percent.

Â· Non-defense discretionary spending jumped from $522 billion in 2008 to $655 billion in 2011. Spending is supposed to fall to $611 billion in 2012, but that's still up 17 percent from 2008.

Â· Defense spending jumped from $612 billion in 2008 to $761 billion in 2011. Spending is supposed to fall to $730 billion in 2012, but that's still up 19 percent from 2008.

Â· Entitlement spending jumped from $1.59 trillion in 2008 to $2.19 trillion in 2011. The budget has entitlement spending at $2.14 trillion in 2012, which is up a huge 35 percent from 2008.

You would think that considering the elections of 2010, PrezBo would have changed his budget to fall more in line with the demands of America ..... you would be wrong. Again, Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute explains that Obama's 2011 budget is essentially exactly the same as the one proposed last year (that never passed).

Â· Last year, Obama proposed total spending for 2012 of $3.76 trillion. His new budget proposes 2012 spending of $3.73 trillion. So, in response to huge and growing concerns about overspending in Washington, the administration has essentially not changed next year's spending target at all.

Â· Last year, Obama projected spending in 2020 at $5.71 trillion. His new budget has spending in 2020 at $5.42 trillion. So the new focus on fiscal restraint in Washington has convinced the administration to trim just 5 percent off of its previous budget by the end of the decade. The new proposal for spending in 2020 is 42 percent higher than spending this year.

Â· Last year, Obama's budget showed public debt rising to 77 percent of GDP by 2020. Yet despite all the administration's expressed concern about rising debt, the new budget has exactly the same debt target in 2020 of 77 percent.

Â· Last year, Obama proposed 2012 discretionary outlays of $1.30 trillion. This year, Obama proposed 2012 discretionary outlays of $1.34 trillion.

Barack Obama must think that the ObamaMedia isn't going to call him out and the American people are too ignorant to know otherwise.

The bigger question are we that stupid and will the Obamamedia let him get away with it?

How does Toyota get its rep back?

2011-02-13T16:27:00.000-08:00

So roughly a year ago, reporters went batshit crazy over possessed Toyotas that accelerate without your consent - smashing into other sedans, running into and over people, or worse: ruining floral mailboxes that look like miniature versions of stately homes.

Well, if you're like me, you knew this might be B.S.

And while I felt bad for the victims - I also felt for the car company - which would lose billions trying to remedy a mechanical problem that may not exist.

But reporters never met a hyped-up story they didn't love, and in this case, they grabbed it by the neck and dry humped it to the ground.

Well, now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, along with NASA, have found that there were no electronic flaws in the cars that would "create dangerous high-speed unintended acceleration incidents."

Their conclusions? The most likely cause of the acceleration was... pedal misapplication."

That's a nice way of saying it's the asshat at the wheel's fault.

I'm sure some people will disagree. But my gut tells me that cars are the safest thing about driving. Elderly drivers, pedestrians and girls frantically searching for breath mints frighten me more.

Which leads me to one thought: why isn't there some kind of punishment for reporters who fall for false, hyped up crap like this?

As far as I can tell, you can write about the dangers of DDT, and be wrong; you can scream about the dangers of nuclear power - and be wrong; you can babble about the coming ice age - and be wrong; and you can then clamor over climate change -and really be wrong.

But everyone forgets.

Which is why, as punishment, they should all be driving Pintos.

And if you disagree with me, you probably drive a Pacer.

A yellow one.

Egypt

2011-02-03T07:53:00.001-08:00

So like you, I've been watching Egypt the same way I watch the Pro Bowl. In my underwear, confused.

Because I think I don't have a dog in the hunt, I check out what people are wearing. Eyeing the men crowding the streets of Cairo, I realize what Goodwill did with Billy Crystal's old sweaters.

Look, I can't tell if these events are a good thing. And I'm inherently suspicious of any stateside protests that erupt so quickly with ready-made signs. I also don't embrace revolution for the sake of revolution. I assume Mubarak is far from a great guy, but I'm not sure his replacement will be any better. And I can't help getting spooked by the name, "Muslim Brotherhood." It sounds like a prison gang from Oz.

(I have a feeling they don't like Israel. Or us, either.)

And some of the commentary kills me. We have climate change alarmists linking unrest to global warming, which makes me want to throw up repeatedly, on climate change alarmists.

But they're half right. Rising food prices do make people angry. And food prices are going up - since we're turning corn into ethanol, instead of chowder. That's surely the fault of climate change, or more precisely, climate change alarmists.

But my guess is, this revolution arrived via four things: Mubarak fatigue, a crummy way of life, an ever present radicalism waiting in the wings, a timid west.

But like you I want a quick, peaceful resolution to this. I'm old enough to remember Iran in 1979, and I'm still ticked off by the Iran of two years ago. In the former, Carter watched a Shah get replaced by a psycho. And in 2009, Obama watched a golden moment for real change slip by. If we had done something about that uprising, maybe this one might be different.

Or at least better than the Pro Bowl.

Government produces nothing. It's a zero sum game when the government is spending the money

2011-02-03T07:37:00.000-08:00

In the last two years, federal government spending has increased by 27%. Remember that in just the last decade, federal spending has doubled.

Two directions we can go from here. First ... we have to ask just what we have for this massive increase in government spending. Think about it, folks. Isn't the idea to exchange money for something of value? What have we gained in the last decade or over the last two years as a nation? The ONLY answer is more government. And there we have another example of just what is valuable to ObamaZombies ... government. More government. Ever more government. The Democrats DID get something of value for this massive increase in spending .. they got more government.

Secondly .. what's this noise about not being able to cut spending? Are these government-loving Democrats trying to tell us that after they've increased spending by 27% over two years (The ObamaYears) the best they can do right now is to free some spending? Not all government spending ... but just some spending? Not a cut .. but a freeze? You know this is a crock .. and even I know it. There is plenty of room to cut spending ... huge cuts ... but Democrats have a constituency to bribe --- votes to buy --- and that takes money.

Let me remind you of one simple truth when it comes to government spending: "For every dollar injected into the economy by government spending, an equivalent dollar had to be taken out of the community in the form of higher taxes or through borrowing." Sometimes we tend to forget this fact ... we tend to forget that this money would otherwise exist, it would just be spent or invested by different people or entities. By allowing the government to spend it, it gains more power.

Now what if I told you that there is a way to increase federal revenues by more than $5 trillion over the next decade? What if I told you that you could do it without raising taxes? No, I'm not a magician. The answer is simple: grow the economy. Let the private sector do what it does best. This from a blog on Forbes:

Strong economic growth would be expected to increase Federal tax revenues to their long-term average of 18% of GDP -- an increase of 3 full percentage points from their current level. That alone would increase Federal receipts by $450 billion a year, or assuming 3% growth, more than $5 trillion over the next 10 years with no increase in tax rates.

In addition, every one-percentage point increase in economic growth would generate an additional $150 billion in national income and incremental tax revenue of approximately $27 billion a year. Maintaining a 1% higher growth rate would add an additional $1.5 trillion in Federal revenue over the next 10 years.

Just remember that the government does not make money, it collects money and spends it. If you want money in the hands of the producers, get government out of the way. Soon enough there will be more producers, with more money, and therefore the government will have more revenue. And the cycle continues ... but when Democrats says "job creation" they mean "jobs created by the government, funded by the tax payers." Got it?

We mock what we are to be.

2011-02-01T06:21:00.000-08:00

I was in line at the local Publix yesterday. I just can't go through the day without my fat-free French vanilla ice cream. There was an old gentleman checking out in front of me. Certainly in his 80's. I thought that he handled the card reader and his debit card quite well, but the two women working the counter - one ringing up the purchases and the other bagging - evidently felt differently. As the old man walked away one looked at the other and made some joke about how slow the man was. In a completely calm and pleasant way (for which I am known) I said; "Yeah, and about 65 years ago that old man may well have been trying to climb a cliff at Normandy with thousands of Germans trying to kill him." I swiped my card, entered my PIN, punched the "no cash" button (I'm not allowed to carry cash) and then looked up. The cashier had a tear running down her cheek. She looked at me and said "thank you for reminding me." Hopefully after I left she gave a little history lesson to the much-younger bagger.

And to all of the old farts we will encounter today fumbling with debit cards and driving 20 mph below the flow of traffic in the left lane with your blinkers on ... Thank you and God bless you. Thank you every day ... not just on Veteran's Day.

Canasta or just the race card?

2011-01-28T07:26:00.000-08:00

We can't manage to go one week without some brain-dead politician in Washington playing the race card. This week's example comes from Virginia Democrat Jim Moran. Now you may remember that name but can't remember exactly why. The last time I talked about this rocket surgeon he had this to say ..

"... because we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards means of redistributing wealth."

Remember that little goodie? Yeah, I had some fun with that. But this time around, Moran resorts to none other than the race card. He says that Republicans made big gains in November in part because "a lot of people in this country ... don't want to be governed by an African-American."

There we go with this hyphenated Americanism thing. But let's keep going. He goes on to say that Americans object to Obama even more because he a is a black president "who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society -- that's a basic philosophical clash."

Playing the race card has been the last refuge of Democrats for two generations now. When the news goes against them, when the rhetoric goes against them, when the votes go against them, they start screaming race.

What Jim Moran can't seem to explain is why all these racist voted for Barack Obama in 2008? If they didn't want to be governed by an African-American, as he says it, why did they vote for him in the first place. Did the people of this country suddenly wake up on January 21, 2009 to discover to their horror that there was a black man living in the White House? Hardly.

But why am I wasting so much time trying to respond to an idiot who believes that the idea that people are entitled to the wealth that they produce is "simplistic"?

If this man didn't have a vote in the House of Representatives he wouldn't be worth the breath that it takes to utter his name.

And as for this "race" thing, let me be clear (pun intended), I don't like the white half either.

SOTU

2011-01-27T08:14:00.000-08:00

Because the State of the Union aired Tuesday night and I was unavailable to comment, I feel compelled to talk about it, if only because I noticed an odd evolution in our leader's voice.

He's transformed himself from a Commander in Chief, to a fretful parent trying to get you to finish those remaining peas on the plate.

As his voice strained higher - it reminded me of my favorite episode of the Brady Bunch, when Greg urged his family members to put on a show, to help pay for a gift for dad and mom's anniversary. I kept thinking Obama was gunna suggest we break up into small groups, and come up with collages that best express our drive to do better.

Now, this "come on, everyone! Let's put on a play!" may work well in a tree house, where you can fashion old blankets into stage curtains...but in front of the country - it's weird.

Maybe because I think he was trying to convince himself, not just us - that America was great.

Or perhaps he felt he had to prove to us that he really felt that way, even if he didn't.

Or maybe even he was simply exhausted - after years of banging on America's faults - and now it was time to come home and sleep in his own bed.

In the end, the speech wasn't bad. It wasn't good. It was a fiery "Eh."

I think he should have kept it fast and simple, like "America rules, now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go to work. And Black Swan was overrated."

To me, confidence isn't built by sixty minutes of earnestness, but by relaxed optimism - made acceptable by an innate trust that you know what's really important in troubled times.

I'm not sure it's solar shingles, or anything to do with Sputnik.

So let me sum up PrezBo's entire speech with this paraphrase--America is a great nation and as Americans we can achieve anything and everything if we really, really want to. And OH--Look -- I found a shiny new quarter.

We be getting closer to the CLIFF

2011-01-27T07:31:00.000-08:00

It's no coincidence that the day after PrezBo speech on Tuesday night, we get new astonishing figures from the Congressional Budget Office. Those figures are that the government's deficit spending will reach $1.5 trillion this year. That is money that we don't have ... money that we have to borrow ... and it is money that your grandchildren will have to pay back ... if we're still around to even pay it back. Remember folks .. that budget is JUST FOR THIS YEAR! The huge sum is blamed on the slow economy (duh) and the extension of the Bush tax cuts (here we go). If you put pen to paper you will see that blaming the tax cuts is absolute nonsense. There's scary news about there about the deficit ... and ObamaBots see a way to use that scary news to advance their class warfare wealth redistribution agenda.

Think about it this way: Our government will have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends in this fiscal year. The deficit will absolutely be the highest on record, although at the rate we are going, I'm sure that record will continue to be broken, and that is nothing to be proud of. In fact, the CBO currently estimates that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2012 - for the fourth year in a row. Our debt held by the public will soar to 70% by the end of the 2011 fiscal year.

It's hard to comprehend all of this, isn't it? But with figures as staggering as these, Obama's plans to merely freeze spending are looking diminutive. (That's tiny for those of you who were educated in public schools.)

Now before we move on to my next intemperate rant ... this must be said. The ultimate blame for what is looking like the eventual economic destruction of our country rests with us, not these politicians. America is a country chock full of people who think that the federal government exists for no real purpose other than to solve every problem they ever have. If they abuse their health, the government is supposed to pay to make them well again. If they fail to save for retirement, the government is supposed to step in with a guaranteed lifetime retirement income. If they spend like teenage girls in a mall, and can't pay their home mortgage, then the government is supposed to step in and bail them out and provide a place for them to live. It's always the government. Space the government is always there to solve your problems. Space and the government should always take money away from other people, who have lived their lives responsibly, to pay for the solutions. This country can be saved. But as long as we have a sizable portion of our population, the moocher class, begging for more and more benefits from the government, and voting accordingly, our future looks dim.

In 1821 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Nathaniel Macon. They actually wrote letters back then. How about an excerpt?

"There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad ..."

But what the hell did Thomas Jefferson know? A lot, apparently. Here is another Jefferson quote:

"I placed the economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts we must be taxed in our meat and drink in our necessities and in our comforts in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."

Now those are two quotes from one of the men responsible for this incredible nation, though Obama doesn't seem to think it's all that incredible. But it actually goes back further than that. Knowledge of the dangers of public debt were known even in 55 BC! Here is a quote from Cicero. No, Cicero wasn't a rapper. He was some Roman dude. A philosopher, actually, who's full name was Marcus Tullius Cicero. Come to think of it, that is sort of a rapper name. Anyway ... the quote:

"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of official government should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

Now think about it my friends; that was 55 BC! If you take the word "Rome" out of that quote it sounds for all the world like it was uttered by a Libertarian or Republican candidate somewhere. It certainly doesn't sound like it could have ever been uttered by Barack Obama except, possibly, in one of his bad dreams.

We have to stop whistling past the graveyard folks. Sometimes when you whistle past too many graveyards you end up being buried in one of them.

Never let a tragedy go to waste

2011-01-10T12:39:00.000-08:00

By now, there's little I can say that would shed light or comfort on the ghastly events that took place last Saturday. As an average joe with a penchant for thinking the obvious, two words came to mind, regarding the shooter: "grudge," and "crazy." Nothing good comes from an equation in which those two variables are involved. And while these events are rare, it doesn't make them any less horrific.

So let me focus instead on the media's coverage, particularly the nonsense on the web, which seemed a stark contrast from the actual facts, as they unfolded. After all, it's the facts that matter, not the opinions of an editorialist with an axe to grind. What bothered me most – the drooling opinionating that sprinted from the gate, faster than the facts could keep up.

And this rush to judgment reveals the media's not-so-secret biases toward certain political personalities and movements. Among a few prominent leftist columnists, celebrities and talking heads, their responses barely concealed a morbid glee in getting their assumptions met - using incendiary rhetoric that they themselves pretend to condemn. The shooting was the best thing that ever happened to their own reservoir of anger. It was a leftwing Lalapalooza.

Actually, it was like watching an opening at Walmart, with sweaty hacks in a tug of war over a table of identical, knee jerk assumptions. All designed to control the narrative. To get there first, to fill a void. It was the world's worst cocktail party, without the cocktails - featuring Jane Fonda, KooKoo Krugman, Piers Morgan, the puppets at Daily Kos and Media Matters – and even WaPo columnist Courtland Milloy, who wanted "to spit on" the tea party, now blaming the right for the shootings. Capping it off, we have a Democrat who wants to ban symbols that may seem threatening to elected officials. I believe that's symptom one in the diagnosis, "God, You're Stupid."

It even reached the other side of the pond, as Morgan, the ruddy replacement for Larry King, leapt into the fray, with a tweet....

"This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications."

This, from a man who ran- on the cover of his old newspaper- a faked image featuring a British soldier urinating on a prisoner. What "political ramifications" did that have for the British military? Thankfully, not much, compared to Piers - who was fired.

And so, on Saturday, Twitter was a feeding frenzy of amnesiacs, galloping to one singular conclusion, forgetting that doing so with the FT Hood shooter was mindless bigotry.

As a rightie, I wanted to go after the ghouls capitalizing on this tragedy to score political points. But you realize, as Congressman McCotter once said, quoting someone famous: wrestling with a skunk only leaves you smelly and the skunk happy.

There were a lot of skunks out there this weekend, and boy did they stink.

Fraud

2011-01-08T08:42:00.001-08:00

So, the most famous and oft-quoted study linking vaccines to autism has been deemed a fraud. A new examination found that the paper, authored by Andrew Wakefield over 12 years ago, contained heavily doctored research to make the link appear real.

This is kind of a huge deal, since the paper was used by witless fools like Jennie McCarthy to scare parents into skipping vaccinations - which allowed childhood diseases to spike, and kill kids.

When Jennie was asked to comment on the fraudulent study, she said, "Really? I guess that makes me a stupid, untalented asshat."

Well, not really.

I didn't bother to contact McCarthy, mainly because I am lazy and it would be pointless. Because for self-involved attention-seeking celebrities like her, they don't let real medical research get in the way of making themselves feel good about themselves.

And that's all this autism-vaccine scare was: an exercise in self-importance for mindless cretins like McCarthy, her ex Jim Carrey, and the assorted chucklebutts at the Huffington Post. The superior feeling they get from telling the medical establishment they're evil more than outweighs the harm they unleashed on the public.

Let this be a lesson for everyone: anytime a celebrity comes out with an opinion on anything regarding health, medicine, the environment, cats, water polo, designer headwear, croutons - simply assume the opposite is true. And as punishment for the crimes committed, I believe we should boycott all of Jenny McCarthy's projects.

As soon as, you know, she has one.

Choose NOW!

2011-01-08T08:40:00.001-08:00

So on David Horowitz's great Newsreal blog, they pose the question: should gays be allowed in the conservative movement? The person who took the "no" side is a chap named Ryan.

Ryan believes that, homosexuality is a "sometime behavior," and he quotes a gay he agrees with, cut and pasting: "...human sexuality is fluid and flexible...The concept of gay and lesbian identity may be nothing but a social construct."

So I guess he believes the same: that sexuality is "flexible," and we choose our orientation.

Which makes me wonder, when did he first choose to be straight?

And did he choose to be straight, only because it's acceptable by conservatives?

I mean, it's got to be tough to think that, at any "fluid" or "flexible" moment, you can go the other way. The bad way. It must require constant vigilance to stick to ones heterosexual guns, and maintain a safe distance from hairless bodybuilders and tanning salons.

I don't know. For me, I'm certain I was born straight, so i don't know anything else. And I don't think too much about it.

So I assume it's the same for everyone.

But maybe life would be easier for millions if it was a choice. Then gays could all be straight, and wouldn't have to deal with people like Ryan.

Lastly, if you want to argue against homosexuality, you need to move it beyond religion. Fact is, if I get mugged, I can explain to the police why the mugger must be arrested - without saying "it's in the Ten Commandments."

After all, pointing to God as the basis for your distaste is what our enemies do every time they try to blow us up. We're better than that.

Dream On

2010-12-25T09:52:00.001-08:00

So, I'm relieved to say the Dream Act - the bill that would provide citizenship for illegal immigrant offspring if they go to college or join the military - failed.

My growing dislike for the act came from one place: I don't trust anything with a fluffy, positive acronym. The Dream Act? It sounds like something I saw in Tijuana involving Louie Anderson and a tub of pudding. So, of course, the actual bill would be a let down.

Anyway, the name stands for "The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act," and that was the problem. It was a lousy bill based on a bunch of unfortunate words, that together, don't mean squat.

They were picked to spell "dream." That's it.

Now, I was for the Act, until I read up on it. Here's what I noticed:

-the idiotic qualification "if they go to college or join the military" equates sacrifice with reward. I'm all for giving citizenship for immigrants who defend our country -because that's awesome. But getting citizenship because you go to school? Seriously. Snoring in class is easy. War is hell.

-the age range for eligibility, even after it was dialed back - is still too broad (up to age 30), with the potential for lying so wide - that the act seems as porous as our border. It's like we're replacing a sieve, with a sieve.

But look - I'm for some kind of Dream Act, but not this one. Let's revamp legal immigration: first let's act like every other country (including Mexico) and secure our borders, then fix this Act. But to do that, we need to be honest. Stop tying lousy bills to emotional heartstrings. Call it what it is. This is about jobs, not diplomas. My suggestion, ditch the school crap, make the military the primary avenue for citizenship.

Make it a sequel. The Dream Act 2: Killing For A Green Card.

Up our ass one more time

2010-12-15T08:19:00.001-08:00

Here we go again. We can call this the Democrats' last effort to tell us to perform a physical impossibility. This is one of the many reasons why we voted these suckers out of office ... we have a $1.27 trillion "omnibus" appropriations bill, packed to the gills with more spending and more earmarks. Oh and the darn thing is 2,000 pages long. Must be another one of those bills that we have to pass in order to find out what is in it. Unless you are chief doughboy Robert Gibbs, who believes that Congress is going to be pouring over all 2,000 pages, just like they did ObamaCare .. a remark which was met with laughter in the press gallery. So when reading the legislation, what might they find? This, for example, in one Senate version of the bill:

$80 million in grants to states and Indian tribes to preserve Pacific salmon
$13 million in clean water grants for rural and Alaskan native villages
$4 million for the Kentucky National Guard's marijuana eradication efforts
$8 million to help maintain the B-1 bomber fleet in his state

Now Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint are insisting that the bill be read in its entirety by the clerk on the Senate floor before a vote is held.

This is nothing short but a complete abuse of the taxpayers. This is politicians showing us who's really the boss. This is the Democrats getting in their last big kick in the voter's rear end before they lose control of the House. This is an outrage ... question is, are the voters paying attention? Will the Republicans fight back?

Not so fast Sanctuary City

2010-12-13T12:21:00.000-08:00

So Tom Krattenmaker wrote a piece this week for USA Today, about Portland, Oregon being targeted by a Muslim terrorist. This gist: How could they bomb Portland! We're just a quirky place everyone loves!

Or at least, doesn't take seriously.

After the cliched warning to not rush to judgement, Tommy says, and I quote,

Why would Portland, of all places, be the site of a terror attack? The "People's Republic of Portland" - so dubbed for its liberal ways - seems so utterly different from New York, Mumbai, London, or the other places that one associates with terrorist attacks. Portland is so much smaller, light years from the figurative front lines.This is a laid-back city where the red-hot rhetoric around terrorism, Islam, the "ground zero mosque," and the like runs cooler.

So, because Portland's a leftwing haven with homemade fliers for guitar lessons stapled on every Peet's Coffee wall - terrorists should skip us, and focus only on the big, boring cities without all those great organic cafes. Heck, they probably don't use cloth bags or read Chomsky (stuff jihadists care about).

And since Portlanders find red meat topics like terrorism so unseemly - our enemies should totally dig us! We love Bill Moyers!

Damn, these folks are dumb. They think their behavior is at the root of other people's actions. And that, if you're nice, terrorists won't kill you.

These jacknuts don't get that no matter how liberal you are, you represent everything terrorists hate, and your touchy-feeliness only makes them hate your sogginess more. Your clogs don't help.

Trust me - terrorists have more respect for the "red-hot rhetoric" of Dick Cheney than a naval gazing goof like Tom. And closing your eyes to Islamic jihad, in favor of contemplating the dent in your consciousness is why the terrorists may come for you first.

Because you're annoying.

The tax commission plan that failed was a FRAUD

2010-12-06T07:47:00.000-08:00

On Friday, PrezBo's deficit commission voted on the proposal offered by co-chairmen Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. It didn't pass. It required 14 votes to force a vote in Congress. No cigar. Bowles and Simpson only managed to secure 11 votes. One of the "no" votes was labor union goon Andy Stern. He says that he voted against the proposal because he wants FEWER spending cuts and more tax increases. Sounds about right for a liberal, tax-and-spend union thug ... someone who really had no business serving on this commission in the first place. But ... when you're the number one White House visitor during the first year of Obama's presidency ... well, I guess you could see that one coming. However the most insulting thing is that they go through these Kabuki dances and get away with it because 98% of the American electorate is stupid about how they set the budget, base line accounting, automatic spending increases already legislated in and the fact that all of them are freaking weasels.

Now here's something you probably don't realize ... though you - we all - should have. The commission's deficit proposal doesn't even propose to cut spending! It only proposed to slow the rate of increasing spending . Nope ... not kidding. With the incredible increases we've seen in government spending over the past 10 years .. this grand commission of policy phoobahs couldn't come up with one single actual spending cut in one government agency. Now I ask you ... can you think of any private business that would have behaved this way if bankruptcy wasn't only in the cards, but perhaps inevitable?

Now ... before you star the emails pouring in ... let's talk about this spending cut thing. Our wonderful "leaders" in congress set up a nifty little scam years ago called the "baseline budget." Here's how it works. Virtually every government spending program has automatic built-in spending increases every single year. These spending increases may be based on inflation, the rate of population growth, or any number of economic or political considerations. The point is that these spending programs have scheduled spending increases built in every year.

How do politicians manipulate this? It's very easy. They vote to cut back the amount of a spending increase for any given year ... just the increase ... and then come to you and brag about how they are cutting spending. They're not cutting spending at all ... they're just slowing down the rate at which the spending is increasing. This is exactly what this seemingly worthless deficit commission did. The truth is Obama's deficit commission is actually proposing real spending increases over the next nine years that exceed the rate of inflation! Under the commission plan spending goes from $3.4 trillion today to $5.1 trillion in 2020.

Think about this! You now have the information you need to realize that this commission is a fraud. The commission was made up of the typical Washington politicians and parasites who have been sucking the taxpayers of this country dry for generations. OK ... I know the commission made some suggestions that some are calling bold ... like raising the Social Security retirement age. Yeah ... real bold. They raised the retirement age FOR TODDLERS. That's really sticking you neck out there.

This was NOT a serious effort at deficit reduction.

Look at some simple facts here on government spending:

How much do you think federal government spending increased during the George W. Bush administration? Let's try 83 percent. Now that comes pretty close to doubling federal spending during the Bush administration. Oh, you say, it was the TARP spending! Sorry ... take TARP out of it and you still have well over 70%.

And what about The Community Organizer? In just the first year under ObamaRule our federal sending increased by over 22 percent.

The point here is that the Imperial Federal Government has been growing spending year after year after year for most of our lives, and by huge amounts in the last ten years ... yet this august commission couldn't even manage to come up with a recommendation to cut the level --- the REAL level --- of federal spending by one single dollar. Come on now ... with these numbers in mind can any of you really suggest that this deficit commission was anything other than Obama window dressing? It was a fraud. A complete fraud. It was there to serve the ends of government, politicians and beltway lobbyists .. not for the purpose of serving the people of this country.

Allow me, dear readers, to share with you the thinking process here:

"Look. We know we're in trouble here .. and we know just how much trouble we're in. The thing is the people don't know how bad things are, and until they realize that we're facing a crisis that could completely rob their children and grandchildren of the American dream, we're pretty much free to give lip service to reform and continue with business as usual here."

Know what? They're right. If you really knew what today's politicians are doing to our future generations you would be hunting them down with pitchforks. But you don't, and they know you don't ... so it's pretty much going to be business as usual.

Not through yet ....

Here's something else you need to know about the deficit commission's proposal. This from the AP - and the liberals will hate this because it essentially validates Sarah Palin's warnings ..

For the first time, the government would set -- and enforce -- an overall budget for Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs that cover more than 100 million people, from Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes to premature babies in hospital intensive care.

Palin attracted wide attention by denouncing nonexistent "death panels" in Obama's overhaul, but a fixed budget as the commissioners propose could lead to denial of payment for medical care in some circumstances.

Overall, the nation will spend about $2.6 trillion this year on health care, and there's evidence that a significant share of that is for procedures and tests that are of little benefit to patients. There seems to be room enough to cut, but no consensus on what should go.

The Democrats are claiming this vote to be a success, because they've changed the dialogue in America. That made me true. But sooner or later you have to stop talking and start acting. They will be judged on their actions, not on their ability to talk.

With the stroke of a pen PrezBo is not sick anymore

2010-12-01T07:20:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama is no longer suffering from a mental illness, according to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I'm not yanking your chain. This is not satire. Narcissistic personality disorder has been eliminated from the upcoming manual of mental disorders. How convenient. The disorder is said to be characterized by an inflated sense of self importance, a special kind of self-absorption described by the New York Times as "a grandiose sense of self, a serious miscalculation of one's abilities and potential that is often accompanied by fantasies of greatness." But that's not all. Those suffering from narcissistic personality disorder automatically expect that others will recognize his superior qualities and will tell him so often.

Sounding eerily familiar? We are talking about a man who referred to himself almost 1,200 times .. and that was just in speeches given in 2009! We are talking about a man's who wrote two autobiographies before accomplishing much of anything. We are talking about a man who rudely reminded John McCain during a bipartisan healthcare summit that the election was over and he (the great Obama) won.

Even though the medical community may no longer recognize narcissistic personality disorder as a mental disorder, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to spot one. Obama truly believes that he's the world's air freshener. Our country's one true hope is that with every day that passes a few more people out there realize what a mistake it was to take someone with no experience or and minimal qualifications and make him the president on the strength of five-word slogans and the ability to read words someone else put on a teleprompter.

This is a real letter and I already checked it out on Snopes. I wish I had written this beacuse it's exactly how I feel

2010-11-30T06:55:00.001-08:00

"I'm 63 and I'm Tired"
by Robert A. Hall

I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked hard since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Christian people of Iran , and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.

I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but thinks that Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I #@*# sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm #@*% tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

Nobody checked his JUNK

2010-11-29T08:17:00.001-08:00

Authorities managed to foil a plot over the weekend to kill perhaps hundreds of people at a Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Oregon. I'll give you a few guesses as to who plotted this terrorist attempt ...... was it a retired teacher with a colonoscopy bag? Was it a white female breast cancer survivor with a prosthetic breast? Was it a Jewish male who carries nail clippers in his pocket? Was it a three-year-old girl with Barbie backpack? Or ... was it a young Muslim male named Mohamed?

If you went with "young Muslim male named Mohamed" then you would be correct. Steam is coming out of your ears from all the amazing brain work, isn't it?

An actual Muslim! Another foiled terrorist attempt, plotted by a Muslim male who was doing his great service of Jihad in the cause of Allah.

We see deadly political correctness at work in at least two area here. First, of course, at airport screening. Even with his name of Mohamed Mohamud this Islamic goon would not have been singled out for any special attention at one of our airports. That would have been profiling! And no matter how many Americans must die we cannot single out people for special attention at airport security lines simply because they are clearly members of a group of people who, on a daily basis, express their desires to see as many of us dead as possible.

Just how many people do you think have died in this country as a result of political correctness thus far? How many more WILL die?

By the way ... this Islamic maniac's target was Portland, Oregon. In 2005 Portlnd decided not to allow Portland law enforcement officials to participate in key anti-terror efforts with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. This is the same FBI that saved Portland's butt here. Now these Democrat "leaders" in Portland are saying that they may reverse their decision and start cooperating. Why? Well ... because now Barack Obama is in the White House.

Idiots.

Don't get content oiver this Holiday time.

2010-11-29T08:13:00.000-08:00

Happy Holidays! Are you in the Christmas spirit? Am I allowed to say "Christmas" anymore, or will be I shut down by the PC-police? But this period between Thanksgiving and Christmas is a time in which most Americans will tune out the politics. Their main concern is the latest sale at the local mall, rather than the shenanigans in Washington. Let me remind you that now is just as important a time to pay attention. We have some serious issues facing us within the next couple of weeks .. the main issue being the Bush tax cuts. We may also have the DREAM Act to contend with, along with budget battles, union butt kissing and more. But as the lame duck session of Congress continues to battle it out in Washington, you are probably under the impression that your job is done. You did your part in showing up to the polls in November. Wrong. Think about it like this: every dollar that you spend in the stores this holiday season is a dollar that the government has its eye on. The more of your money the government has, the more power the government has over you. While you're out there spending, saving, investing ... whatever ... the money you have worked for you need to remember that there are people in Washington who actually believe that they, not you, are the best people to spend that money. After all ... you belong to the government, right? You don't believe it, just ask them! It is the province of the politicians to determine just how all of these government assets are to be used to make life better for everyone in America. Assets? You, my friend. To many in Washington --- and I'm including no small number of Republicans here - you are nothing more than a government asset. You are to be permitted to keep as much of the wealth that you produce as is necessary to preserve the fiction of a free society. All it takes is just momentary lapses in attention ... those brief moments where you're more focused on jock sniffing and celebrity worship than you are on these people who can use force to accomplish their goals. Stay alert .. or 12 months from now the government will be exercising even more control over your life. There are votes to be bought, and your wealth is the currency.

Alright .. enough of the ranting and on to the warm and fuzzy fact of the day from the Weekly Standard. It has to do with those tax dollars, which the federal government is prepared to seize.

Over the past 20 years, the average interest rate the Treasury has had to pay on money it has borrowed has been 5.7%. But over the past year, the average rate has been 2.2%. That's no small difference given the size of our debt.

... if the current very low rate continues, and our fiscal policy basically follows the track laid out by the president's last budget, then the interest on the debt 10 years from now will be a little over $350 billion. If the rate goes back to the 20-year average, however, interest on the debt 10 years from now will be more like $1.15 trillion. Again, no small difference. Indeed, it is enough to make some prominent elements of our deficit debate seem a little ridiculous.

The increase in annual interest costs in 2015 alone--$557 billion--is nearly six times the additional revenue that is supposed to be collected by letting the higher end of the Bush tax cuts expire, the centerpiece of the current fiscal policy debate in Washington. The increase in interest costs in 2019--$795 billion--is two-and-a-half times the value of all the Bush income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that are due to expire.

PrezBo, Nancy Pelosi and the general Democrat mantra is that we can't "afford" to let tax cuts continue for the evil rich. More appropriately, "We can't afford to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires." But even if you increase taxes on these evil rich people, it can't even come close to paying the interest on what the Democrats have spent over the last few years. We don't have a revenue problem, folks. We have a spending problem.

Reality Bites IV

2010-11-29T08:09:00.000-08:00

Country after country in Europe have had to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund with help from more solvent nations. And in country after country we're seeing people in the streets demonstrating. Why are these countries facing these problems? Because they've gone into deep debt doing for people what the people should have been doing for themselves .. and because politicians everywhere realize the value of having huge workforces dependent on them for their livelihoods. Thus the demonstrations? "What do you mean I'm going to have to start fending for myself again? Are you kidding me? Hey .. I know my government job may not be all that essential, and I know that I'm getting paid more than I'm really worth to the taxpayers of this country ... but you're going to throw me under the bus now? You're going to cut my pay and my outrageous benefits now?

Kinda says it all.....

2010-11-25T07:41:00.000-08:00

Be afraid---Be very afraid..

2010-11-23T06:59:00.000-08:00

Why do you go into business? OK .. seems a bit trite, I know. But seriously consider the question. I assume your response would be: to make money. But if you ask the Obama administration, people go into business in order to serve others, and there are times when the government can force your services on others and then dictate how much you are allowed to keep from providing those services. I am talking about health care .. ObamaCare.

Yesterday the Obama administration released details on a new regulation to go into effect January 1, 2012. It states that money collected from private health insurance premiums must go toward medical care, rather than overhead, administrative costs or - gawd forbid - profit. In fact, the government can now demand that you offer your customers a rebate if you collect too much in premiums that is not spent on medical care.

Here's how it is explained in the news reports ...

The healthcare law requires large group health plans to allocate at least 85 cents per premium dollar to medical care, not administrative costs or profit. Plans for individuals or small groups must spend 80 cents per dollar.

If plans do not spend at least that much on care, policy holders get a rebate. HHS said Monday up to 9 million Americans could be eligible for up to $1.4 billion in rebates starting in 2012.

Are you believing this, folks? The government is requiring that an industry spend 85% of its earnings on providing that service, leaving 15% left for everything else. What does "everything else" include? Administrative costs, marketing, taxes, commissions and profit! Among other things. A study released in 2006 found that "The private market administrative costs are expected to remain at about 9% of total private insurance cost, excluding premium taxes, commissions, and profit. With such items, private costs would be slightly under 17%." Folks, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with providing you better care at a better cost and everything to do with growing government and growing your dependency on government.

Reality

2010-11-22T08:19:00.000-08:00

"Everything is on the table." Sounds familiar, right? That is what we've been told when it comes to PrezBo's deficit reduction commission. But if you are a Democrat, "everything" principally applies to tax increases on the evil, disgusting, crooked, undeserving filthy rich, and perhaps even a tax increase in the form of a VAT tax (which will be billed as a "deficit reduction sales tax").

What is another line that sounds familiar? How about, "We can't afford tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." How many times have we heard THAT line over the past few weeks. Some Democrats think that line is working so well they've even edited it to leave out the "millionaires" part and are limiting it to "billionaires." They've further modified their class warfare script to include the idea that it's not just a tax cut, it's "$100,000 checks for billionaires." Democrats will go to any length to step up class envy and class warfare in this country. This is because they know that most people who are envious of or hate those with considerably more money than they have will most certainly vote Democrat. But when it comes to "affording" these tax cuts, remember that we are really talking about tax INCREASES on the rich. Democrats want to increase taxes. Got it?

We're told that increasing these taxes will lead us on a path toward eliminating our deficit. That's the Democrat argument. How many of you actually believe that? And just how many of you actually believe that if we increase taxes, thereby increasing the amount of money that the federal government collects, we will then use that money to apply it toward deficit reduction?

Before you answer that, perhaps I can share a little nugget of information with you. I'll try to make this semi-interesting .. In the late 1980s, some economists at Ohio University got together to do a little study for the congressional Joint Economic Committee. They wanted to know what happens when the government increases taxes and therefore collects more money for its coffers. Did government spending grow or did our debts shrink? These bean counters worked and slaved over their research and calculators and came up with something that is now known as the $1.58 study. This is what they found: "Every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results."

Let's review: Higher tax collections have never resulted in less spending by Congress. Do you understand that word? NEVER! And you think this time it would be different? Under Obama? At some point you really have to try to start thinking more clearly. It's not painful, really. The only pain is the embarrassment you feel over having been conned for so long.

Don't be fooled by the Democrat rhetoric; and don't expect the ObamaMedia to tell you the facts behind tax increases. Increasing taxes on the rich has nothing to do with reducing our deficit. It has everything to do with pandering to the wealth envy crowd. When presented with the information that increasing capital gains taxes resulted in less revenue for the government, our own president said that he would still increase taxes "for the purposes of fairness." How can you even debate such logic?

It's just not that complicated

2010-11-09T06:51:00.000-08:00

We've got some serious work to do when it comes to tackling our fiscal inadequacies. How does this one sit with ya? Senators Tom Carper (D-Delaware) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) want to increase fuel taxes. The proposed 25-cent-per-gallon increase would go toward deficit reduction and the highway trust fund. If implemented, it could raise $200 billion over five years. There you go ... two members of the Senate who think we have a revenue problem instead of a spending problem.

Raising taxes. That's all these people can ever come up with. Just a few weeks ago, I shared this little tidbit with you from the Congressional Budget Office. We can eliminate the deficit .. and do it relatively quickly ... WITHOUT cutting spending or raising taxes. Three scenarios:

* If we cap federal spending at current levels and extend the Bush tax cuts the budget will be balanced by 2016.

* If we limit increases in government spending to a rate of 1 percent above inflation and population growth the budget will balance by 2017.

* If we limit increases in government spending to a rate of 2 percent above inflation and population growth the budget balances by 2020.

But I guess these options are not nearly as sexy as taxing the rich or coming up with new ways to raise or increase taxes. After all, these politicians need something to do in Washington to make it seem like they are working. They can't write press releases for their local districts, bragging about how they aren't spending money.

Don't let up the pressure on the Republicans

2010-11-08T09:13:00.001-08:00

Maybe you've sensed it too. The rhetoric coming from some Republicans leaders in Washington has been, shall we say, just a bit odd. Well, for one, they're upset with the Tea Party movement because the Republicans say that the Tea Parties cost them at least three Senate seats by pushing unqualified candidates (Sharron Angle, Cristine O'Donnell and Ken Buck) in races the GOP could have won.

Say what? Is it sounding to you like the Republicans actually went out there and won this midterm election on their own? Now there attitude seems to be "Well, we're in power again. Time for these Tea Party people to go back to their Bibles and stuff."

You would have thought that some of the brighter minds in the Republican Party would have realized that the voters didn't vote FOR them ... they voted AGAINST Democrats. This "Hey! How cool are we!" stuff is going to get tiring.

This John Boehner guy? Still not sure about him. As Andrew C. McCarthy pointed out in this column, Boehner wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street journal about the election and opportunities for Republicans and didn't once use the word "debt" in that article. At the start of World War II a single American's share of our national debt was about $370. Today that figure is at $44,370. Boehner focused in that article on earmarks. Earmarks account for less than one percent of our budget. Hey, Boehner ... how about a little focus on the REAL problems out there?

We need to ride the Republicans even harder than we did the Democrats. With the Democrats there were alternatives. If the Republicans start enjoying their power a bit too much, and forget why they were put back in charge of the House ... then where do we turn?

And the GOP social conservatives? Concentrate, for a while, on how you live your own lives. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion. Nobody is going to force you to marry someone of your sex. Nobody is going to coerce you into a homosexual act. And you can still pray whenever and wherever you want. Getting back on those tired rants isn't going to save our country .. it will serve, instead, to deliver us right back into the hands of those who want to destroy --- or "fundamentally transform" - America.

Think about it.

2010-10-28T07:37:00.000-07:00

Would anyone out there like to venture a guess as to what the number one name for newborn boys is in Great Britain is? Nope, it's not Winston. And it's not John, Paul, George or Ringo either. It's Mohammed. I was in England in 2008. When I stepped out of the Underground and walked into daylight near my hotel I was completely blown away by the numbers of women in burkas. I might as well have been in Kabul. Those of you who think this is a good thing for Jolly old England raise your hands.

Reality Bites

2010-10-25T07:28:00.000-07:00

Don't usually watch 60 Minutes any more. Last night it caught my eye though ... they were featuring some people who have been on unemployment for over 99 months; hence the 99rs. It was heart wrenching. Here was a room full of people with college degrees; many with advanced degrees. Most of them thought they would retire with the company they were working for when they lost their jobs. CBS correspondent Scott Pelley talked to people who were thrilled to get a job at Target on the sales floor. Every one of these people were surprised to be in the situation they find themselves. Many have pulled some or all of the money out of their 401K. It's just horrifying.

And it's infuriating too. It should not be this way ... it need not be this way. Businesses are sitting on more than two trillion dollars in cash right now. In more normal times this money would be used to hire people and expand as the economy recover. These are not normal times. These businessmen are scared to death. Oh, I know ... Democrats and "progressive" moonbats like to say that these businesses are intentionally holding back on spending and hiring just to embarrass Obama. Pure bullshit! They're sitting on this money because they don't know what's next, and they're afraid of just how bad it could be.

Can you put yourself in their place? Try to imagine that you are a small businessman. You've already dedicated your life to the formation and growth of your business. Here's what you're facing

You have no idea what your tax burden is going to be next year. You're a small businessman and you report your earnings and your profit on your personal income tax return. Almost 50% of all business income ... representing more than 60 of all private sector employees. Will your taxes go up or stay the same? If the taxes go up, either your customers, your employees or you will pay the price. Which will it be? Maybe it's just best to wait things out so that you can make a sound business expansion plan - or not - when you know what your tax structure is going to be.

And what about ObamaCare? Is the mandate going to withstand court challenges? How much is it going to cost to cover your employees? Should you drop coverage and pay the penalties?

Don't forget cap and trade. This monstrosity has already passed the House. Will the Democrats manage to keep power and get this passed? How will that affect your business. How much will it cost?

And don't forget card check. If the Democrats give the unions what they want - the power to intimidate your employees into unionizing - how will that affect your business? Do you really want to own and run a business with a unionized workforce? Maybe you had better wait to see where this is going.

Then there's the financial reform act. How many different government agencies are there right now that are creating new rules for the operations of financial institutions? You have to borrow money from these institutions .. they handle your credit card transactions. They manage your employee 401K plans. These financial institutions are intertwined into every aspect of your business. Perhaps you ought to put expansion on hold until you find out what these hundreds of pages of regulations are going to bring you.

Finally .... There's this. You've known for a long time that Democrats are not now, nor will they ever be friendly towards private business. But now things are even worse. You have a president who honestly hates the free market. We have a president who believes that profit is a symbol of exploitation and that the rich got that way by plundering the lives and the very rights of the middle class and the poor. He considers the free marketplace to be predatory and sees himself and government as instruments to tame the savage free enterprise beast.

So .. .there you sit. You have the money to grow, but you're asking yourself if you really want to put your wealth at risk trying to grow your business in this environment ... and the answer is ... well ... probably not. Let's wait and see what happens.

Obama isn't suddenly going to become business friendly, and the Democrats aren't going to suddenly the free market after this election. You have a president who referred to his brief stint working as a clerk in a private office as "working behind enemy lines." Don't you get it? That's you he's talking about. You! YOU are the enemy!

Obama - the president who, to whatever extent he thinks America is great - believes that greatness comes from government - cannot be removed from office for two years. But he can be defanged. The venom he wishes to inject into the bloodstream of American business must originate in the congress. Taking the House of Representatives away from Barack Obama is like removing the fangs from a rattlesnake. He can hiss and rattle all he wants ... but it becomes little more than show.

Alert

2010-10-20T06:51:00.000-07:00

Information about Gonorrhea Lectim ...

The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease. The disease it called Gonorrhea Lectim. It's pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'em," and it is a terrible obamanation.

The disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum. Many victims contracted it in 2008 ... but now most people, after having been infected for the past 1-2 years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.

It's sad because Gonorrhea Lectim is easily cured with a new drug just coming on the market called Votemout. You take the first dose in 2010 and the second dose in 2012 and simply don't engage in such behavior again; otherwise, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life as we know it.

Several states are already on top of this, like Virginia and New Jersey, and apparently now Massachusetts, with many more seeing the writing on the wall.

Please pass this important message on to all those bright folks you really care about.

Twats wrong with this picture?

2010-10-15T07:29:00.000-07:00

So, in a blinding feat of profound wussiness, the Washington Post removed the October 3rd "Non Sequitur" cartoon from its rag. The reason? It mentioned Muhammad. Let me repeat: it was yanked because it "mentioned" – not showed – Muhammad.

There wasn`t a picture of him in the strip.

But the Post, and some other papers, still pulled it.

Admirably, Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander asked his Style editor why- and he said, "it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." He added that "the point of the joke was not immediately clear."

Yeah. That`s why you did it: ambiguity. Weasel.

And here we see another float in the parade of pussies – a callow editor making a cowardly decision based on a fear of upsetting religious fanatics (a fear he cannot even admit to coworkers).

Which leads me to my only point. Why is it that the media keeps reminding us that we shouldn`t exaggerate the threat of a small group of radicals – but completely changes tact, when it comes to their own personal safety?

Think about it: if the average Joe expresses fear or anxiety over Islamic fundamentalism, they are called Islamophobes. But if an editor with balls the size of electrons removes a comic in which Muhammad isn`t even present – that`s not honest-to-Allah Islamophobia?

No, that`s just being sensitive.

Look, the media can`t have it both ways. They cannot criticize the public for concerns over Islam, and then eradicate anything in their midst that they perceive might elevate their risk for getting stabbed buying a chai latte at Starbucks. If their governing principle in the newsroom is fear, then they should admit it – and get the hell off our backs for feeling the same way.

A genuine outrage

2010-10-14T07:16:00.000-07:00

This story has been flying along at fairly low level for a while. It would seem that a lot of our man and women serving in our military oversees are not getting their absentee ballots for the midterm elections. The latest story is about Illinois ... our Ruler's home state. We learn today that not all of the 110 jurisdictions in Illinois have complied with the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Enforcement Act that requires that all absentee ballots to overseas troop be mailed 45 days prior to the election. Now just how difficult would that be? Well, difficult enough, apparently, that the violations are so obvious that even Eric Holder's Justice Department is investigating.

Missing overseas ballots from Illinois servicemen is a particular problem because of the very close race for Obama's Senate seat between Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. There's also a thin edge for the GOP candidate for governor. The military ballot could - our could have been the deciding factor in these elections.

Every time I've seen this story reported there has been one glaring omission. Nobody seems to remember what happened in 2000. When you consider the actions of the Gore campaign and the Democrat National Committee during the Florida recount debacle you really have to wonder if the lack of compliance in 2010 is purely coincidental. Get in your way-back machine and you will remember that the Democrats sent dozens ... perhaps more than a hundred ... volunteer lawyers to Florida. These lawyers had one primary instruction. They were to fan out into the various Florida voting districts where recounts were being held, and they were to to everything they could to make sure military ballots weren't counted. Democrats knew that military voters trend Republican ... and they were determined to prevent as many of these votes counting as possible.

Consider the possibility that some local Democrat operatives are trying to pull the same thing in 2010. Just sayin'.

Mexican leadership at its very best

2010-10-13T11:59:00.000-07:00

So, it's worse than smoking, drinking while pregnant, or frying bacon in the buff. Combined.

Mexico's health ministry has announced that being an illegal immigrant is hazardous to your health.

Yep, during a health conference in that adorable country, they said Mexican illegal immigrants have higher rates of mental illness, AIDs, and drug problems after crossing the border. The study was done in conjunction with the University of California, a-k-a goofball central.

So upon hearing these conclusions, you'd think the researchers would suggest to their people: "Hey, don't leave Mexico - stay here! It's healthier!"

But no.

Instead the researchers blame...us. Yep these problems are due to a lack of access to medical care in the US - something we jerky racists are denying them.

Yes, they're sick because we're racist! According to a frantic article by All Headline News, lack of health care is likely to get worse because of a "xenophobic wave that has arisen after the start of the economic...crisis."

So, it's Arizona and the tea party's fault too.

So, what does it say about Mexico, and its leaders - when citizens are fleeing your country- and the response is a health summit?

Well, it says something.

Look, you need to stop focusing your resentment on America - and instead look at your own mess - and fix it.

Screw holding conferences on "the health consequences of immigration." Why not hold a conference entitled, "Why is everyone dying - literally - to get out of here?"

It's an idea you should be thinking about every moment of your waking life - instead of blaming America because your uncle's hearing voices.

Oh Cisco---Oh Pancho.
(Just a little ad-lib for all the folks who are old enough to remember the Kid)

Teeny Bopper Townhall

2010-10-08T08:14:00.000-07:00

So MTV is holding a "townhall" for President Obama on Oct. 14, 4 p.m. in Washington, D.C.

In this case, a town hall is short-hand for "an event where annoying questions are asked by unemployment hipsters with vintage t-shirts and edgy eyewear."

But a casting call has surfaced, and this is what it says:

Seeking-Audience Members: males & females, 18+. To ensure that the audience represents diverse interests and political views, include your name...and what issues, if any, you are interested in or passionate about. Also, provide a recent photo and short description of your political views.

So what's the point of this prescreening process? Well, it serves three purposes:

One: to make sure the audience reflects America - which, coming from MTV - means it will look like something a Benetton ad might vomit, if it could vomit. Get ready for every nationality you can think of, plus of few you've never heard of - along with some amusing piercings and Asian lettered tattoos.

My prediction: there will be a transgendered Eskimo with ADHD there to ask Obama to get her harp seal recognized as an assistant animal.

Two: to make sure the questions asked will reflect the MTV's earnest concerns. The environment. Health care. Amnesty. Hermaphrodite bathroom rights. The central strategy: to avoid coming down too hard on Obama, and instead placing the criticism on us, for expecting too much from Captain Delicious.

And three: a smattering of hot chicks and some wistful emo dudes, who will fawn over Obama like he's Justin Bieber with a tan.

Me, I can't wait to watch - I find projectile vomiting is ten times better than the Stairmaster when it comes to losing weight.

And don't forget to pay attention to the guy with the bolt in his nose holding the leash on his Unicorn. That's my nephew Moonbeam.

2010-10-08T07:51:00.000-07:00

The reign of Nancy Pelosi's ethical and transparent Congress may be coming to an end. It was just four years ago that Princess Nancy promised that the Democrats would lead "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history." Remember that? Surely you didn't believe her ... did you?

So what happened? Pelosi's Posse got drunk with power. Then the Democrats believed that their drunken spending spree was validated by the voters when they captured the White House in 2008. But for whatever reason - the continuously floundering economy, the passing of legislation nobody wants, the emergence of the Tea Party, secret closed-door meetings, ethics investigations into their own members, bills that nobody has read - the Democrats find themselves in a position where people no longer believe them. Simply put: they have lost America's trust. It is not that the Republicans have gained that trust, which they so squandered years ago, but that the Democrats blew it. And Nancy Pelosi was at the helm. A recent poll emphasizes this fact: Most voters think Congress's ethics have gotten worse in the past two years, with 57% of likely voters believing that the ethical situation on Capitol Hill has deteriorated since PrezBo took office.

CongressCritter Phil Hare is a Putz. An ignorant Putz

2010-10-07T08:14:00.000-07:00

From the man who brought us the infamous sound bite from a townhall meeting, "I don't care about the Constitution!" comes this next quote. Representative Phil Hare is an example of someone who needs to be shown the exit door in just 26 days.

Allow me to quote Rep. Phil Hare (Dumbocrat)

"And we will see a terrible price that we will pay years down the road for letting our children down when they need us the absolute most. I'm not going to be part of that, so every minute that I have here is going to be spent debunking the myth that this country's in debt and we just can't spend."

What?

Is it just me or is the man trying to say that the existence of our debt is merely a myth? Lest I remind you of this fact that forty-one cents of every dollar the federal government spends we have to borrow from our kids and grandkids. Our current national debt is over $13 trillion. If there is one thing that virtually all economists can agree on, it is the fact that our spending levels are on an unsustainable path. But people like Rep. Phil Hare will go as far as to refer to it as a myth. Unbelievable. But what the hell ... after all, he doesn't care about our Constitution. How bright can he be?

Time for the Race Card

2010-10-07T08:10:00.000-07:00

Here we are .. down to the wire. Just 26 days until the elections and what do we have emerging from the Democrat camp? The race card. It was bound to happen. When in doubt, use the race card, and the Democrats have some serious doubts ... or at least, the people have some serious doubts about them. Recent Gallup polls show that the "white working class" is flocking to the Republicans; whites without four-year college degrees prefer GOP candidates by twice the margin of the last two elections. This is bad news for Democrats, considering that the white working class accounts for four out of every 10 voters in America.

Obviously Democrats need to come up with an explanation. Just why are white working class Americans abandoning Obama? Why are they flocking to the Republican Party? Well ... it has to be race, of course! These Americans obviously can't stand the idea that we have a black president, so their only recourse is to vote the opposition into power. The Democrats, however, are having a bit of a rough time trying to explain just how long it was after these white working-class people who voted for Obama in 2008 figured out he was black! "He's black! Dammit, why didn't someone tell me! I'm a racist, you know, and I wouldn't have voted for him if I had know he's black!"

While the Republicans have issued a Pledge to America and promise to get serious about spending and our debt, what is the underlying agenda of the Republican Party? According to Democats ... that agenda would be to turn back the clock on minority gains. Seriously! House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra of California said yesterday that minorities will lose ground on the policies they have worked so hard to achieve. James Clyburn says, "If we do not have a turnout in the minority communities, Latino and African-American, equal to our percentage of the voter population, we could very well see ourselves turning the clock back on so many issues important to these communities." (Yeah ... like more welfare and amnesty.) Clyburn goes on to explain that we can't let this happen ... "Next year, we may even get the public option!" The public option? That's right. Government healthcare.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen polling shows that finds that just 36% of voters now say relations between blacks and whites are getting better. That's down from 62% in July of last year. What a shame. If we could have gained anything from the Great Obama Experiment, at least we could have gained some ground on the issue of race relations. If we could at least have something to show for the incredible spending and debt levels Obama will leave in his wake, improving the opportunities for those who have ever felt as though those opportunities didn't apply to them would have been more than a consolation prize - it could have shaped a generation. Maybe ... could it possibly be ... is it at all fair to say that some people just don't feel all that swell about cozying up to a group of people who seemingly would still back Obama if he sprouted horns and a tail? Just askin'.

Four weeks from tomorrow you had better vote...

2010-10-04T06:58:00.001-07:00

You've heard of this one, haven't you? Nancy Pelosi was sending out positive vibes at the end of last week ... positive, that is, if you like the idea of the Imperial Federal Government collect a 1% (initial) tax on all financial transactions ... any financial transaction at any financial institution.

You haven't heard about this? No surprise. There's an election coming you know. Democrats aren't fond of telegraphing their various tax schemes just before you go to the polls. My guess is that you'll hear plenty about this if the voters of this country somehow manage to leave the Democrats in power. Drudge did, however, run with a bit over the weekend wherein Nancy Pelosi indicated that the idea had merit. On December 4th of last year CNSnews.com ran with a story detailing Pelosi's endorsement of a "global" tax on stock trades and other financial transactions that she said at a news conference could bring in $150 billion annually.

So ... just in case you're actually thinking of voting, maybe this explanation will help you make up your mind.

A financial transaction tax would most likely start out at around 1%. If you made a $500 deposit into your savings account, $5 would go to Washington. If your employer automatically deposited you $1,845 paycheck into your account every two weeks, $18.45 would go to the federal government. That's what happens when your money goes INTO your account? But what about when it comes OUT? Well, that's another financial transaction, isn't it? Charge a $80 dinner for two to your Visa card, 80 cents to the government. Let's say your car payment is $390 per month. Every time you make that payment $3.90 goes to the government. Over 36 months this would amount to $140. Now remember .. you already paid income tax on this money ... and here comes another 1% going in, and 1% coming out.

Mention this to a Democrat ... and they will surely tell you that you are crazy, that they would never consider something like this. But hold on a minute ... you need to know that this idea of a financial transaction tax is very popular right now in Europe. Some have even proposed such a tax as a way to support the United Nations, and I've already told you about Pelosi's love for the idea. So ... do you feel lucky? Go ahead! Put your favorite Democrat back into office. Then you can react with amazement a few months down the road when the Democrats - still in power thanks to your efforts --- announce that something like a temporary transaction is going to be necessary to take care of our deficit. The truth, of course, is that if they got the tax it would not be used to cover the deficit ... it would just be more money for them to spend on their various vote-buying schemes. Temporary? Yeah, right. The only thing about this financial transaction tax that would be temporary would be the rate. Again ... how long would it take them to tell you that they just "had" to raise the rate to 2%, but just for a while, mind you .. just for a while until whatever crisis our dear leaders in Washington were dealing with passed.

Are you beginning to see what the stakes are here four weeks from tomorrow? We're not playing some video game here folks. The threat is real, and if you aren't on the front lines to fight these people I promise you that your children and grandchildren will damn you for walking away from this battle.

Obama vs. Fox and you

2010-10-02T05:24:00.000-07:00

So President Obama was just interviewed in Rolling Stone magazine, that thinning pamphlet for our country's dwindling supply of pony-tailed pensioners.

(AARP skews younger.)

When asked about Fox News, this is what our Commander-in-chief had to say.

I think Fox ... is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It's a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful.

Okay. So, you're the President of the United States, with both Houses under your control. You also have the most fawning press of any president in the history of the universe. And yet you let FNC get under your skin, because it's the only network that doesn't have a thrill up its leg?

Obama is like a sports team who owns the ref, the fans and the field- but refuses to play until the kid in the tenth row stops chewing gum.

So let's indulge Obama's fantasy: and imagine if FNC didn't exist. Yeah, it's the good old days, when the only media was a liberal one.

Well, Obama would still be in trouble. See, it wasn't Fox who started the tea parties. It was Rick Santelli - and then America ran with it.

In fact, it would be far worse for Obama if there was no Fox, because then he'd only have the American people to bash. There is no Republican adversary, and without FNC - who's left? You.

And this is why the Whiner-in-Chief needs FOX. It provides cover, so Obama can criticize Americans without ever saying "America." He can just say Fox News instead.

Obama is not a Muslim

2010-08-25T08:04:00.000-07:00

Let's make it clear. I don't think he's a Muslim. I'm not buying into that Christian thing either. I know that the Bible says not to judge lest we be judged .. and I think that applies to a man's religion more than other areas of one's life .. but since Obama wants to judge when I've made enough money, I'll feel free to pass my own judgments on his professed religious feelings.

Christian? Sorry ... don't buy it. Obama joined Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago for one reason ... political advantage. He surveyed the landscape and figured out that membership in this particular church would bring him the biggest political advantage as he launched his career. Simple as that.

But what about this Muslim thing? The media likes to portray those who think Obama is a Muslim as stupid, foolish or just plain demented. Really? These people who believe Obama is a Muslim have absolutely no foundation to their beliefs at all? Consider:

* Obama was born to a Muslim father. Some interpretations of Islamic law indicate that if you're born to a Muslim father .. you're a Muslim, at least at birth.

* Obama most definitely did go to a Muslim school while living in a Muslim nation.

* Obama most definitely did say that one of the most beautiful sounds in the world is the Muslim call to prayer at Sunrise.

* Obama most certainly has engaged in an extraordinary amount of pandering to Muslims since he was elected.

* Obama told his NASA Administrator that his "foremost" at NASA would be to improve relations with the Muslim world to make them feel good about their historic contributions to science.

None of these things make Obama a Muslim today. Again .. I don't think he is a Muslim any more than I think he's a Christian. But people who do have their doubts and express them as they have a right to do shouldn't be denigrated by the media elite for their stupidity. There is that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck thing.

Now this isn't to say that Obama doesn't have a god that he worships. He most certainly does. That god is Government and his scripture is the Federal Register, his cathedral the Capitol Building and his communion a bill signing ceremony.

Recovery Summer

2010-08-25T07:56:00.000-07:00

So there we have Joe Biden telling Americans yesterday that "we're heading in the right direction." Well ... from his standpoint, and certainly from the standpoint of his boss, The Community Organizer ...perhaps he's right. Right, that is, if your version of "the right direction" is toward the economic tyranny that will be visited upon us by Obama's vision of a centrally planned economy and your ability to accept fictional numbers like jobs saved or created and lives touched.

Just take a look at some of the headlines over the past few days:

* Home sales in the United States were down in July. This in spite of dirt-cheap mortgages and greatly reduced prices. The figures are the worse we've seen in this country in over a decade. The experts are telling us that we're in for another drop in home values. Welcome to Recovery Summer!

* The Financial Times says that disappointing US economic figures are driving a surge in demand for low-yielding assets. I'm not sure what that means, but it doesn't sound good. Here's a quote: "Things appear to have come to a head...with markets braced at the edge of a precipice ahead of key US economic data likely to further unnerve investors already concerned by the extent of impending slowdown." Welcome to Recovery Summer!

* This from The Wall Street Journal: Day after day, investors have been hit with more evidence that the economy is stalling. The Dow is down over 4% this month, after an ebullient July that was fueled by impressive earnings results from U.S. companies. The Dow posted another triple-digit loss today and at one point fell below the 10,000 level. Michael Casey has details about the factors driving today's market action. But earnings season is now over and investors are far more focused on potential troubles ahead. What's that Biden said? Oh yeah ... Welcome to Recovery Summer.

* Economist David Rosenberg, apparently someone who has earned a certain degree of respect in economic circles, writes a daily brief for investors. Yesterday he said that the U.S. economy is heading into a 1930s-style depression. He reminded his clients that the Great Depression also had some high points such as positive stock market gains .. but then, as now, those signs of recovery were unsustainable and only provided a false sense of stability.

* Charles Nenner, founder and president of Charles Nenner research says that the Dow is on its way down to 5000 in the next 30 months. He's saying that things "really look bad for the next 10 years."

* While millions of Americans are looking for jobs so that they can start taking care of their families again, Our Hero is looking for over 5% in new income tax that our own government says will affect 50% of the small business income that we need to put to work to grow new jobs. Smart, isn't it?

* You saw the jobless claims that came out last week. Try 500,000 new jobless claims. Welcome to Recovery Summer.

* The number of subscribers to cable and satellite television fell for the first time in history during the second quarter of this year. People just aren't going to pay the price any more .. not in this economy they're not.

* The Obama Administration is no longer using the "jobs created or saved" nonsense to tout the effectiveness of the stimulus plan. There's a new phrase now .... "lives touched."

* The Obama Administration has now as much as admitted that ObamaCare will increase the cost of medical care in this country and, at the same time, add to our deficit. Exactly the opposite of what was promised when they were trying to get the bill passed earlier this year.

Is this all working out the way you planned it in 2008? Absolutely NOTHING that Obama and his Democrat dog washers are trying is working. In spite of the infantile ravings of Biden, there is no recovery. Millions of Americans are still out of work while Democrats borrow money for such wonderful stimulus projects as teaching Siberians how to deal with their government. Siberians, in case you were educated in our hideous government schools, are Russians .. and the government we're trying to teach them to interact with is located in ... Moscow. There you go. A quick $200,000 shot to hell by Pelosi's big spenders ... and Obama calls this "economic stimulus."

This is what we get when the idiot voters in this country fall for a smooth talking community organizer with absolutely NO executive experience at all, a man surrounded by academics and lawyers ... and who has often professed his disdain for the private sector, and satisfied their collective white guilt... and we put this inexperienced dolt in charge of bringing our economy back. And who does PrezBo put in change of the recovery--Joe Biden who has never been right in his life.

Would you take your sick puppy to a vet that hates dogs? Why, then, would we take a sick private sector economy to a ruler who hates the private sector?

This is all so much worse than I ever could have imagined when Obama got his tira in January of 2009. I've seen incompetence before ... but this character gets the gold medal.

I'm telling ya. If the Democrats remain in power after the November election this year, it's time to buy some luggage. If they remain in power after 2012 ... and this disaster of a president gets a second term ... it's time to pack.

A few facts

2010-08-24T07:13:00.000-07:00

Here are some facts that you can throw at your liberal friends every time you seek to talk about government spending, and all they can come up with is "Well the Iraq war cost us .......". Randall Hoven of the American Thinker has a few facts to chew on:

* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.

* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.

* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.

* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.

* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.

* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).

* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

Ya just can't make this shit up!

2010-08-24T07:10:00.000-07:00

I am waiting for someone to pull the "I gotcha!" out from under this one .. because it is so absurd that I have a hard time believing that even our government could be this dense. First of all, here is a figure I can believe: $194,213. That is how much the Government Accountability Office estimates it has cost for every job "created" by Obama's stimulus plan. Is there a sane American left who does not understand that the stimulus plan was never anything other than a compilation of Democrat politician spending dreams and schemes?

But ... as they say .. you ain't heard nuthin yet. Now we apparently a new way to classify a "job created" or a "job saved." Apparently these are no longer the terms of choice for the GAO. They have decided to go with a kinder, gentler phrase ..... "lives touched."

No I'm not kidding, folks. The Daily Caller has a quote from a spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explaining:

"'Lives Touched' is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds. This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act."

You want to talk about lives touched? Talk about the millions of Americans who can't find jobs right now because of the anti-business policies of the Democrats and the Obama administration. Now there are some lives touched.

Let's see how long this GAO "lives touched" bat shit lasts.

Alternative Universe

2010-08-23T06:20:00.001-07:00

Ummm hello??

Is anybody out there just a wee bit concerned about the fact that Iran is now, officially, a nuclear-capable state? They have been working on their nuclear plans for years, and thanks to the help of the Russians, they finally managed to get it done. Iran now has an operational nuclear plant and, on Saturday, loaded the enriched uranium into the reactor for the first time. Any sane person knows that this is absolutely not the last step in the nuclear process for Iran. It is only a matter of time - one year, according to Obama - in which Iran could enrich that uranium to destructive levels. Make no mistake - nuclear weapons are on the way. In fact, on the same day that Iran started up its nuclear reactor, it also launched the country's first domestically built long-range unmanned bomber aircraft, calling it an "ambassador of death" to Iran's enemies. Sounds like a country that is out for peace, doesn't it?

The reaction from the White House: this is "no threat" to anyone's security. How unbelievably dense must Iran think we are? The mad mullah Ahmadinejad has called for the extinction of Israel .. to "blow Israel off the map." He has defied the entire world in achieving his goals of a nuclear state, and with what repercussions? Exactly. We have done nothing and we will continue to do nothing. The only choice we have at this point is to react to any provocation that may occur. I'm sure Israel is thrilled. At this point, considering that Obama is the one with his finger on the button, who knows if we would even come to Israel's defense?

Oh no I didn't!

2010-08-16T07:45:00.000-07:00

You can't imagine how shocked I was to hear our Community Organizer promote the mosque at Ground Zero. On Friday evening, in an observance of Ramadan, here's what Obama had to say about the mosque:

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country ... That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances ... This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Wow. Is this guy sharp or what? Am I the only one getting a bit weary of Obama bringing his community organizer mentality to the podium of the White House? The issue has never been whether or not Muslims have the right to build a Mosque - community center - or whatever they chose to call it. The issue has been WHERE they want to build it. Obama made this statement in the presence of some of this country's most influential Muslims. This was an opportunity for him to address the sensitivity Americans have to the building of this Mosque on the site of a building damaged by the 9/11 attacks ... a site just two blocks from Ground Zero. Obama could have simply said something like this: "The American people have a deep appreciation for freedom of religion and have shown through the history of this country their tolerance of different religious viewpoints. All they're asking of the Muslim community is recognition that many, perhaps most Americans consider the location of this planned Islamic Community Center as hallowed ground. The landing gear from one of the aircraft flown into the World Trade Towers crashed into the very building that will be demolished for the construction of this Islamic center. As President, and on behalf of the people that I represent, I would ask you to reconsider your plans for this project."

But nooooo. Not Barack Obama! The next day, Obama decided to "clarify" his comments:

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Obama continued. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about. And I think it's very important as difficult as some of these issues are that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about."

So .. there you have it. Not one mention of Ground Zero. Not one mention of the sensitivities and concerns of the American people. In fact, he specifically said that he would not comment on that. How's that for leadership? What an amazing disaster this man is.

Obama and Dems are ButtBoys for the Unions

2010-08-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

We've heard the rhetoric from Democrats: Republicans are in bed with the oil companies. The Republicans favor Wall Street over Main Street. Republicans are on the side of evil health insurance companies. Democrats love to point the finger at Republicans and the influence of their "special interests." But who are the special interests that keep the Democrat Party awash in funds? The anti-business party has to be getting campaign donations from somewhere .. they have to be at the end of somebody's lobbying agenda. So who is it?

Oh come on now. Surely you already know.

The labor unions. The teachers unions. BP may be the current corporate boogey man ...but the damage done to the Gulf ecosystem is already proving to be much less than estimated. In my estimation teachers unions have done far more damage to our nation and our culture this year than BP, and the damage lasts generations. If Americans had a clue about the nature of the damage being done to their children by the refusal of teacher's unions to accept ideas such as school choice and teacher accountability these unions would have been run out of town a decade ago. Our government schools exist to indoctrinate our children into how to be good employees and loyal government subjects. The teacher's unions are willing participants in this effort.

I understand that there are good patriotic union members, and I understand that unions sometimes stumble into positive action .. but by and large unions exist today as organizations designed to help workers escape workplace accountability and to fund economic liberty's greatest enemy, the Democrat Party. Unions are the number one reason so many of our local and state governments are facing tremendous budget problems right now. The wage and pension benefits negotiated by unions - negotiated in return for massive campaign contributions - are a threat to local economies coast to coast. They have managed to scam politicians into a generational theft scheme, which has now left our country, our cities, our states, our taxpayers, deep in the red. This entitlement mentality that permeates from union goons is ultimately paid for by you - the taxpayers - because our gutless politicians are too afraid to lose their support and ultimately their jobs. Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner has the painful truth. These are facts that you and everyone should know .. facts that will demonstrate just how influential these unions are over Democrat politicians.

Public employees and their unions have contributed more money to the 2010 elections than the employees, executives and PACs of every oil company combined, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The $7.9 million that the sector gave to Democrats is more than the Republican haul from Wall Street, insurance or lobbyists.

The public employee sector spent $40 million on lobbying in the first six months of this year -- more than health maintenance organizations, commercial banks and the defense/aerospace industry, according to CRP.

Democrats have raised $1.7 million this year from the American Federation of Teachers, more than Republicans have raised from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, combined.

AFT's PAC spent $21 million in the 2008 election, more than certified "special interests" such as the National Association of Realtors PAC and the National Rifle Association PAC. Combine the PAC spending of the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, and you're at about 36 percent of AFT's spending.

Stunning, isn't it? If you believe that these labor unions, and the teachers unions, truly have your best interests at heart .. that is probably because you grew up in a government school where you were educated to believe that from a young age. The teacher union bailout vote this week is absolutely nothing but Democrat pandering to one of their largest supporters. How hard is this to understand? There is one thing the Democrats got right. This vote was about jobs .. only it wasn't really saving jobs in your community but about saving their own jobs in Washington.

A little reality and truth

2010-08-09T07:42:00.000-07:00

The Democrat strategy for this upcoming election is abundantly clear: they are running against George Bush. The language on the network shows lately point to the "Bush recession" and the "failed policies of George Bush." Democrats are trying their best to link Republicans to George Bush. This is particularly evident when it comes to the battle over the Bush tax cuts. Democrats and Obama administration officials like to tell us that we simply cannot afford to continue tax cuts for the evil rich. In other words, the evil rich need to pay more of their 'fair share.' But there are a few facts about the Bush tax cuts (and tax cuts in general) that you should keep in mind. These come from the Heritage Foundation:

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly ALL of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

There is one fact that stands out to me: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. If the Obama administration's true goal is to get businesses hiring and investing, increases taxes and maintaining economic uncertainty clearly isn't going to do that. What the administration SHOULD consider are policies which will give businesses true incentives to hire. Obama should focus on growing the economy rather than generating more tax revenue with tax increases. For example, repealing or at least lowering corporate tax rates would be a huge help to corporations at this time. Ironically enough, countries like England are currently lowering their corporate tax rates. Meanwhile, we can only assume that any taxes on the rich or evil corporations is only going to sky-rocket. Would continuing the Bush tax cuts cost money? Well sure .. in the short term. Clearly you would expect an increase in revenue over the short term with an increase in tax rates, but as the high producers adjust their behavior to meet the punishment of increased tax rates you would see government revenue from those with increased taxes start to fall. Remember ... more than half of the evil rich people who will be hit with these Obama tax increases are small business owners. These are the people we need to grow our economy and produce jobs. I would submit to you, though, that Obama's intense dislike of the private sector, and his dedication to wealth seizure and re-distribution overweighs any desire for jobs growth in the private sector. Obama truly believes that money spent by government will do a better job of prompting economic growth than money spent by the parties who actually earned it. If you agree, Obama is your man. Keep that obscene bumper sticker on your car.

2010-08-05T07:43:00.000-07:00

Our esteemed Community Organizer spent some time pandering to the unions yesterday. It was at a speech to the AFL-CIO where he came up with this quote: "You have a perfect economic storm that's hit our middle class directly in every region, every segment of this country."

Perfect for what? For government to swoop in and solve all of your problems. Although, that ALWAYS comes with a price. This is a price that liberals try to convince you is worth it - more government, most taxes, more redistribution. In the end you are to believe that you would never have weathered the storm without your trusty government officials there to guide you.

This is a prime example of never letting a good crisis go to waste. This "perfect economic storm" means that it is perfect for government and for unions. But as for the private sector?

Oh and while we are talking about pandering to the unions. Our Community Organizer also pledged to the AFL-CIO that he would "keep on fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act," otherwise known as the card check bill. That is just what Americans want right now - more power concentrated in the hands of unions and Washington. But ... Obama knows where the votes are. He knows that pandering to the unions is a big part of keeping Democrats (and himself) in charge.

If for no other reason than to reduce the power and influence of unions in our economy, the Democrats must be removed from power in Washington. For the most part, the time for unions has come and gone. They are a destructive force in our schools and a destructive force in our economy.

ObamaCare--Missouri ain't buyinng it..

2010-08-04T07:22:00.000-07:00

This may be one of the most memorable political quotes from 2010. It came from Princess Nancy Pelosi. She was speaking about ObamaCare, and she said that Democrats were going to have to "pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy." Well, that worked for Pelosi and Obama. Did it work for you?

Well ... it would seem that the voters of Missouri have now seen what is in the bill ... and they don't like it; not even a little bit. There was a little vote in Missouri yesterday. Well, not quite so little if you're an ObamaZombie. About 70% of the Missouri voters supported a measure on the ballot that would prohibit the government from requiring people to buy health insurance or to penalize them for not buying it.

Obama is also having some problems with the courts on Obamacare. The recent ruling in Virginia on the ObamaCare challenge is a prime example. Judge Hudson believes that "never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far." Are you hearing this? The Obama administration has managed to push our Constitution to its absolute limit to the point where the courts cannot determine whether or not this is even within the bounds of our Constitution. Judge Hudson goes on to say, "While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate-and tax-a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce."

What is the matter with the "decisions have consequences" mantra? OK, fine. So someone makes the choice not to buy health insurance. What does that mean for them? In the past it meant that you head to the emergency room for your ordinary medical care and the insured patients and taxpayers end up paying for your irresponsibility through higher hospital bills and taxes. Now this just isn't a workable model. We need to return to a system where individuals are expected to show at least a modicum of responsibility for their own lives ... and where they will be expected to face certain consequences if they do not. Let's put it bluntly. If someone makes stupid lifestyle and financial choices, and then reaches the point where those stupid choices have created a situation whereby that person is unable to adequately address resulting illnesses ... that situation should not constitute a liability for another American who has paid attention to the details of a responsible and healthy life. When people figure out that the failure to address their own healthcare needs and a healthy lifestyle is going to work out very poorly in the end --- and that includes their not being able to use the government to plunder those who have lived more responsibly --- things will change.

Just remember that to many "rulers" in Washington, the Constitution is an impediment to The Community Organizers' "fundamental transformation" of The United States of America. It would be a nation built on a vaporous definition of "fairness" and redistribution of wealth and resources, rather than a nation built on hard work, individual responsibility and freedom. Slowly but surely, these people in Washington have managed to chip away at our Constitution for years, all in efforts to promise the dumbmasses more and more, for the sole purpose of being re-elected and maintaining power.

I gotta pee---Take me to Wikileaks

2010-07-28T08:28:00.000-07:00

So as you know, Wikileaks has posted a crapload of secret military reports about the Afghan war, including covert operations against Taliban figures. They claim their goal is to reveal "unethical behavior," by the government and corporations.

On their website they write "All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people."

This is pure bullshit, to use the scientific term.

The fact is, their goal is to only "expose" people they don't like – meaning the United States military - and get worldwide props for it.

The head of Wikiliks, Julian Assange would argue that their role is to shine a "light on the everyday brutality ...of war." But of course, he's sympathetic only to those we are fighting against. He says he wants to help "people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards."

Can you guess who the bastards are?

Look, we don't need him to tell us that war sucks. No one wants to see our troops or innocent civilians dead. But we fight to eradicate an evil- and in this case it's an evil that this douchebag is helping. Remember that the U.S. doesn't send suicide bombers into crowded restaurants, or behead journalists, or fly planes into buildings. We are waging a war against scum - and yet Julie chooses to thwart us instead.

It makes me wonder that if Julie had secret documents that harmed our enemies - would he share those? Since they don't fit into his hit list of evil "governments and corporations," hell no. So while his majestic, but wholly one-side strategy of transparency continues - it's America that's being attacked.

Secondly, whatever Julie thinks is "unethical behavior" is only unethical if you're an idiot. For example, saying it's a war crime to have an enemy hit list may be true if it's at a children's birthday party. But in war, it's the whole point. The entire war is a hit list, you doll-haired dipwad.

But see, Julie isn't doing this to save lives - he's doing it for himself. He enjoys "creating systems on a grand scale, so, in the end, he gets back at daddy and reaps the accolades that come with it.

May a terrorist mistake him for a sexy goat.

Journolist

2010-07-23T07:26:00.001-07:00

So, thanks to the Daily Caller, more emails are emerging from "Journolist," that secret list of liberal media hacks - and guess what, they're about Sarah Palin.

And surprise: they aren't positive!

First, they focused on how the media could help Obama beat McCain, after Sarah was picked as a running mate.

Jonathan Stein from Mother Jones loved the idea that the pick should be labeled sexist.

He writes: "That's excellent! If enough people - people on this list? - write that the pick is sexist, you'll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket."

Thank God he capitalized "single!"

But my fave? Politico reporter Ben Adler, now at Newsweek, writing,

"... doesn't leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument?"

Maybe so Ben, although I wonder how you know her baby is "sad." Perhaps you could share your expertise in this area, douchebag.

So, here's what we've learned so far from the leaked emails:

-they desperately wanted Obama to win

-they cried like little girls when he did. (He's their Justin Bieber.)

-they conspired to label anyone who disagreed with them as racists

-they hate Sarah Palin.

So let me get this straight: everything we see in these missives is exactly what we suspected about the mainstream media all along. All of these revelations boil down to one supreme epiphany: they completely fulfill the mundane, predictable stereotype of the contemporary media hack.

Well, actually: it's only an epiphany if you just got here.

The real point: With the exception of Fox News, a few mags, a handful of talk radio hosts and some vital websites -the idea of free-thinking journalism is dead. These chuckleheads - Adler, Ackerman, that toolbag Jeffrey Toobin - try sooo hard to swagger via email, yet they come off less rebellious than Kenneth from 30 Rock. They're the Eddie Haskells of modern media: slobbering kittens reeking from the desperate sweat of sycophancy.

Looking for a job? Here's the problem...

2010-07-16T13:22:00.000-07:00

Do the businesses out there have the money to expand? Yes, they do. The desire is there as well. What business doesn't want to grow? So ... what's the problem? Why did you or someone in your family spend the week spinning their wheels looking for a job? What's holding things up?

Consider:

Major corporations are sitting on $2 trillion dollars in cash right now.
Corporate profits are up.
Banks have another $1trillion in excess reserves

As National Review's economics editor Larry Kudlow points out, that's $3 trillion dollars being held in the private sector that could be financing the greatest job-creation and business growth. What's more .. this money could be financing growth in the private sector, not in government. So ... what's the problem?

Obama and the Democrats .. that's the problem.

Just a few things to consider:

This new so-called financial reform bill the Democrats have just passed calls for the creating of 243 new regulatory rule makings that will affect businesses across the country. Tell me .. are you going to take that cash out of your reserves and start spending before you have a clear understanding of what those new rules are going to be and how they are going to affect your business? There is the law of unintended consequences out there to deal with.

Then there's ObamaCare. Tax hikes and new regulations. Businesses are still trying to figure out how this is going to affect their bottom line. For instance ... do they keep their employee health care benefits or let the government just do it all?

Oh yeah .. then there's Cap and Tax. Obama is using a spill of oil in the Gulf of Mexico as a reason to pass a bill limiting carbon emissions from American businesses. This could be the largest tax increase in our nation's history. So ... draw that money out of reserves and stick your financial neck out while the future of Cap and Tax is still unclear?

America still the second highest corporate tax rate in the world! Maybe all that money these corporations are sitting on could be better invested overseas where the tax consequences aren't quite so harsh.

The fact is that businesses don't really understand what their relationship is going to be with the Imperial Federal Government in the years to come. Taxes going up? More regulations and bureaucrats to gum up the works? Will ObamaCare become the disaster that so many expect?

I don't care how much you love Barack Obama. You could think that he is just the most amazing and talented human being to ever walk the halls of the White House. The fact is that American business doesn't like this guy. He frightens them. Businessmen know of Obama's history of negative statements toward the free enterprise system. These men know that Obama once referred to them as "the enemy." Corporate America, as a matter of fact, has just recently begun to acknowledge their dislike of the current administration. Private small business owners ... where 80% of the jobs are ... have been wary of this guy since day one.

Do you want to see these businesses start hiring? Well .. that's going to take a while. The effects of all of these new laws and regulations are going to have to make themselves known. That won't happen in weeks or months. One thing would help .. and that would be for the voters to wake up and chase as many of these left wing anti-capitalists power-hungry Democrat politicians out of office as possible in November.

In the meantime ... if you're unemployed, and if you aren't looking for a government job ... and you vote Democrat in November .... Well, let's just say that the economy isn't your only problem. You may just flat-out be unemployable.

Oh .. and are you wondering why the Democrat's wonderful new financial overhaul bill doesn't apply to automobile dealers? One word .. Lobbyists. Didn't Obama tell us that lobbyists were going to be on the outs under his rule? Oh well .....

Who be da racist?

2010-07-14T06:55:00.000-07:00

You've probably heard by now that the NAACP has formally accused the tea parties of racism. The resolution .. debated behind closed doors at the convention .. "calls on the tea party and all people of good will to repudiate the racist element and activities within the tea party,".

OK ... let me 'splain this to you. It's really not all that hard. So easy to understand, in fact, that a government education should be all you need to "get it."

The Community Organizer is in trouble, and he's dragging down the Democrat Socialist party with him. Even Obama's chief mouthpiece is suggesting that the Republicans might take control of the house in the November elections. Independents are bailing on Obama as they come to realize the damage he's not only done to our economy .. but to the economic futures of our children and grandchildren.

It's time for damage control. Time to head to the solid and dependable Democrat voter base and get them energized. And just who are those solid and dependable Democrat voters? Union workers and blacks. So now we find Obama's travels putting an emphasis on speeches to and photo ops with union workers. While Obama concentrates on the unions, the NAACP is working on the black voters. The tactic is simple and effective. Scream racism. Put the race pimps on horseback and run them up and down the urban streets shouting "The racists are coming! The racists are coming!"

I suppose this is going to work to some extent. Just as there are wizened citizens who will buy that "if you vote for Republicans they're going to take away your Social Security" nonsense; there are surely blacks that will now rush to the polls in November to turn back the "racists." The left has a problem though. They have so overused the "racism" word that most people in this country - and many blacks - now consider the word to have little serious meaning. The real-world working definition of the word "racist" now would read something like this: "Any action or utterance seen as opposing any belief or position held by a person who is not a member of the Caucasian race."

The NAACP and Obama dog washers of various stripes are going to find out that black Americans worry about the futures of their children the same way white Americans do, and they recognize that the massive debt we are incurring under Obama's rule will ultimately condemn their children to a life of servitude to government.

By the way ... the NAACP cited this urban legend about all of those tea partiers shouting epithets and racial insults at black members of congress back during the ObamaCare drama. You do realize that there are no audio or video recordings out there which support this myth, don't you? Well ... you are now.

Define poor?

2010-07-13T16:50:00.000-07:00

So Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is at it again.

At a forum with Democratic opponent Jack Conway in Kentucky, Paul said America's poor, are "enormously better off than the rest of the world."

He cited an old Russian propaganda film that showed poor Yanks with color TVs. The story goes that while this flick was meant to demonize capitalism, it backfired when the Russkies saw all those TVs. Rand added that "It doesn't mean we can't do better. But we have to...be proud of ...capitalism."

Some Dems are knocking Rand, saying his comments reflect " a dogmatic belief in free enterprise and limited government," which to me, sounds like a compliment.

The fact is, the richest person in a Third World country would trade that spot for the lowest rung on the American ladder. But I'll go further and say the poor in the US - when viewed by the rest of the world - aren't poor at all. The poverty level for us looks like something to shoot for.

According to the most recent data I found, there's roughly 250 million TV's in America. That's over two per household, not including lap tops, dvd players and homemade puppet diorama's.

And if you hate anecdotal evidence, you're going to hate what I say next: I watch Cops, and every "poor" household they bust into has shag carpeting, an overabundance of prescription drugs and a cluttered entertainment center. This to me, is not poverty: it's a slice of heaven.

Fact is, there are too many countries to mention where citizens have a yearly income measured in hundreds of dollars. While our poor can still buy music, beer and Nikes, one purchase at the Footlocker cripples Liberia for a week.

Anyway, for more information on this topic, watch Cops.

The wrong guy got Fired

2010-07-10T06:52:00.000-07:00

Compare C.V.'s

General McChrystal Biography
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/
Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan
United States Army
SOURCE OF COMMISSIONED SERVICE: USMA EDUCATIONAL DEGREES
United States Military Academy - BS - No Major
United States Naval War College - MA - National Security and Strategic Studies
Salve Regina University - MS - International Relations
MILITARY SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses
United States Naval Command and Staff College
Senior Service College Fellowship Harvard University
FOREIGN LANGUAGES:
Spanish
PROMOTIONS DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
2LT 2 Jun 76
1LT 2 Jun 78
CPT 1 Aug 80
MAJ 1 Jul 87
LTC 1 Sep 92
COL 1 Sep 96
BG 1 Jan 01
MG 1 May 04
LTG 16 Feb 06
GEN 11 Jun 09
FROM TO ASSIGNMENT:
Nov 76 Feb 78 Weapons Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Feb 78 Jul 78 Rifle Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Jul 78 Nov 78 Executive Officer, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 78 Apr 79 Student, Special Forces Officer Course, Special Forces School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Apr 79 Jun 80 Commander, Detachment A, A Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Jun 80 Feb 81 Student, Infantry Officer Advanced Course, United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia
Feb 81 Mar 82 S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area, Korea
Mar 82 Nov 82 Training Officer, Directorate of Plans and Training, A Company, Headquarters Command, Fort Stewart, Georgia
Nov 82 Sep 84 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart , Georgia
Sep 84 Sep 85 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, Georgia
Sep 85 Jan 86 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jan 86 May 87 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
May 87 Apr 88 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Apr 88 Jun 89 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jun 89 Jun 90 Student, Command and Staff Course, United States Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island
Jun 90 Apr 93 Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia
Apr 93 Nov 94 Commander, 2d Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 94 Jun 96 Commander, 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis , Washington
Jun 96 Jun 97 Senior Service College Fellowship, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University , Cambridge , Massachusetts
Jun 97 Aug 99 Commander, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Aug 99 Jun 00 Military Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, New York
Jun 00 Jun 01 Assistant Division Commander (Operations), 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait
Jun 01 Jul 02 Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING
FREEDOM, Afghanistan
Jul 02 Sep 03 Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC
Sep 03 Feb 06 Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Feb 06 Jun 08 Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Aug 08 Jun 09 Director, The Joint Staff, Washington , DC
Jun 09 Present Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan
SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS:
S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area , Korea (Feb 81-Mar 82, Captain)
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia Jun 90-Apr 93 Major/Lieutenant Colonel)
Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 01-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington , DC (Jul 02-Sep 03, Brigadier General)
Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg , North Carolina (Sep 03-Feb 06, Brigadier General/Major General)
Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations
Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina (Feb 06-Jun 08, Major General/Lieutenant General)
Director, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC (Aug 08-Jun 09, Lieutenant General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09-Present, General)
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS ASSIGNMENTS DATE GRADE
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia (Jun 90-Mar 91, Major)
Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait (Apr 01-Jun 01, Brigadier General)
Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (May 02-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09- Present, General)
US DECORATIONS AND BADGES:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Special Forces Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
_________________________________________________________________
Obama Biography:
Birthplace: Location remains questionable. Proof of United States Citizenship hasn't been provided.
Education: Columbia University , Harvard Law School . Records never produced, attendance remains questionable.
Military Career: None
Business Career: None
Political Career: Community organizer, Chicago, 1983-86; civil rights attorney, Chicago, 1991-96;
University of Chicago, lecturer, early 1990s-2004; Illinois State Senator, 1996-2005; U.S. Senator, 2005-2008; President 2008-.
____________________________________________________________________

Crusing the Internet

2010-07-02T07:27:00.001-07:00

Amazing the headlines you read. Let's see .....

Unemployment claims are up.
The so-called "recovery" is fizzling
US debt at a record percentage of GDP .. and growing
Private business aren't hiring ... and don't plan to
Government employment growing across the board
Iran thumbing its nose at further sanctions .. continue work on the bomb
Dependency on government growing at highest rate since Jimmy Carter
The United Nations is calling for the dollar to be replaced as the global reserve currency
Oil leak in Gulf continues with no real end in sight
Taliban cooling their heels and waiting for our July 2011 pull out date
Tax increases across the board in the US
The Value Added Tax is on the way!
Home sales are down by 30%
Six months to go before we are hit with the largest tax hike in history
Hugo Chavez just seized 11 oil rigs owned by a US company
Mexican drug gang fight at Arizona border kills 21

So ... how's that Hopey-Changy thing working out for you?

New Scam--For the old Bad Boys--Look out.

2010-06-22T07:00:00.000-07:00

Older men scam

Women often receive warnings about protecting themselves at the mall and in
dark parking lots, etc. This is the first warning I have seen for men. I
wanted to pass it on in case you haven't heard about it.

A 'heads up' for those men who may be regular customers at Lowe's, Home
Depot, Costco, or even Wal-Mart. This one caught me totally by surprise.
Over the last month I became a victim of a clever scam while out shopping.
Simply going out to get supplies has turned out to be quite traumatic. Don't
be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you or your friends.

Here's how the scam works:

Two nice-looking, college-aged girls will come over to your car or truck as
you are packing your purchases into your vehicle. They both start wiping
your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their breasts almost falling out
of their skimpy T-shirts. (It's impossible not to look).
When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say 'No' but instead ask for
a ride to McDonald's.

You agree and they climb into the vehicle. On the way, they start
undressing. Then one of them starts crawling all over you, while the other
one steals your wallet.

I had my wallet stolen Mar. 4th, 9th, 10th, twice on the 15th, 17th, 20th,
24th, & 29th. Also Apr. 1st & 4th, twice on the 8th, 16th, 23rd, 26th &
27th, and very likely again this upcoming weekend.

So tell your friends to be careful. What a horrible way to take advantage of
us older men. Warn your friends to be vigilant.

Wal-Mart has wallets on sale for $2.99 each. I found even cheaper ones for
$.99 at the dollar store and bought them out in three of their stores.

Also, you never get to eat at McDonald's. I've already lost 11 pounds just
running back and forth from Lowe's, to Home Depot, to Costco, Etc.

So please, send this on to all the older men that you know and warn them to
be on the lookout for this scam. (The best times are just before lunch and
around 4:30 in the afternoon.)

The Obama Oval Office Speech

2010-06-16T06:54:00.000-07:00

Did you watch the Community Organizer last night? If you are like me, it pains me to even see this man in action, addressing the people from the Oval Office. Never did I imagine that this man would be such a danger to this nation .. or at least a danger to the few Americans who still value freedom and liberty, free enterprise and the idea of personal excellence. What incentive does any young producer have to succeed and work-hard, when all Barack Obama and his liberal cadre in Washington want to do is take your earnings for redistribution ... for redistribution to people who have done absolutely not one thing to actually earn it? (Well, aside from voting for Obama, that is.)

How is the gimme mentality going to foster a new wave of growth and entrepreneurship among small business owners and innovators? The answer is that it is not, and that is exactly the point. Despite what the teleprompter may tell you, Barack Obama doesn't give a damn about your small business or your success. This man cares about nothing but government and retaining power. I would also say that he doesn't give a damn about your wealth, but that would be incorrect - he DOES care about your wealth so long as you earn enough to hand it over to the government and let the government decide where it should be spent. And that is exactly what is happening to BP ..
The Obama administration has made it official: If he has his way BP will no longer be responsible for the claims process for those affected by the oil spill. The Obama White House determined that "the best way to prevail on BP is to take the claims process away from BP." That's complete nonsense. Here's what The Community Organizer really meant to say last night:

"The best way to make sure that the government gets the credit for helping those who are affected by this tragic accident, rather than a private sector company getting the credit, is for us to seize control of the claims process."

Now why exactly are they taking this process away from BP? Has BP said that it would not honor the claims and pay any economic costs of the oil spill? No. Has BP been sluggish in paying claims submitted thus far? No. In fact, about half of the 42,000 claims submitted thus far have been worked through by a team of more than 600 claims personnel. Would you call that inefficient? If you want inefficient let's go back to the days of the Cash for Clunkers program. Do you remember dealers across the country screaming about how hard it was to get their money from Obama's federal government? Dealers were promised that they would be paid within 10 days. Yeah, right. Define "day." Needless to say, the government failed miserably to live up to its commitment. For some, it took months to receive their checks in the mail. Some businesses found themselves on the verge of having to shut down when the checks finally arrived. Some savvy dealers saw the writing on the wall and quit the program altogether. Remember?

Nobody in their right mind (which excludes most ObamaZombies) would suggest that the government can do a better job of processing and paying these claims than the private sector. So the question remains: Why is the Obama administration doing this? Well .. I've already told you. Read the highlighted paragraph above. Barack Obama wants to make sure that when it is all said and done, the "savior" in this crisis is government, not BP. Even the residents of Louisiana are now saying that George Bush did a better job of responding to Katrina than Obama is responding to the oil spill. For the grand lover of all that is government, this is completely unacceptable. Barack Obama has a centrally-planned economy to build, and the narrative of a corporation acting responsibility does not fit in to the vision of an evil and malicious corporate America that he has been trying to build. In other words, Obama must step in to prevent the evil corporate giant BP from accomplishing the task. Government - the ObamaGovernment - must be the savior here. Obama isn't doing so well in the polls right now. Maybe taking down the evil BP giant can help him with some of the more ignorant voters out there.

Make no mistake - this step has nothing to do with caring about oil spill victims or making sure that BP pays up. It has everything to do with making government look like the hero. He will do everything to convince you that pelicans would be forever covered in oil and we would be eating blackened shrimp for the rest of our lives, if it hadn't been for Barack Obama, the Democrats and their imperial federal government. Former Clintonista Paul Begala is writing today that Obama is showing his personal commitment. Begala is right .. but commitment to what? To the elevation of government in every thread of American life, that's what.

Seething with anger, Obama is hoping that you will put aside all rational and logical thinking skills and actually believe that government - an entity not in the oil business -- will be able to handle this crisis more efficiently than BP. Maybe this one will be the exception! But if I were you, I wouldn't bet whatever is left of your 401(k). In the dictionary of common sense, waste, fraud and abuse are synonyms for government. Here are just a few facts to noodle through from the Heritage Foundation:

The federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008. Are you grasping that figure? Here we have PrezBO demanding what? About $20 billion from BP so that the government can be in charge of handling claims, and this very same government squandered $72 billion in improper payments in 2008? Someone ask BP how much they wasted in improper payments that year.

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve. Hopefully that is no surprise to you. These programs may have failed to show a positive impact on the people government was intending to help ... but they damn sure increased the power of government. So ... mission accomplished.

A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. If you ran your household or your business that way you would be bankrupt in a heartbeat. Only government can get away with that crap - and its because you LET government get away with it by continuing to elect the same power-hungry imbeciles who got us into this situation in the first place.

Federal agencies are delinquent on nearly 20 percent of employee travel charge cards, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Oh yeah ... they're going to get these oil spill claims paid quickly and accurately, aren't they?

Those are just generalities about the spending habits of our federal government. But how about a recent "crisis" example where the government stepped in to allocate claims. Let's turn to Hurricane Katrina ...

Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. What the hell. Who really cares? Just add it to the debt, right?

Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications. We're talking over one-third here. And you think that by some magic the doling out of BP's money is going to go any more smoothly?

Lawmakers diverted $13 million from Hurricane Katrina relief spending to build a museum celebrating the Army Corps of Engineers -- the agency partially responsible for the failed levees that flooded New Orleans. What guarantee do we have that government won't similarly divert BP funds to some politically-favored projects?

These are just a few examples of government inefficiency. We could go back through history and I guarantee you that you cannot find one government-run program that a rational person could consider efficient. But as I've already said, that is not really the point here, is it?

Obama is living a dream right now . Another wonderful crisis he can exploit to further increase the power of our Imperial Federal Government. Where does this end? Maybe the new paradigm will be that when the cost of some disaster exceeds a certain set sum, the responsible parties and/or the insurance companies with claims to pay will be required to turn that money over to some federal agency ... The Federal Disaster Payment Authority (or something like that) ... which will in turn make the payments to the aggrieved parties. Nice. Let's let politics rather than good business practices decide where the money is going to go.